Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement on the allocation among public bodies of increased Government expenditure to assist the machine tool industry.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): The estimated allocation between public bodies is:



£million


British Railway Workshops
1


Government Training Establishments
0·75


Royal Ordnance Factories and Naval Dockyards
2


Universities
1


Polytechnics and Further Education Colleges
4–5

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although I am grateful for that information, confidence has still not returned to the machine tool industry, particularly Alfred Herbert in Coventry? What steps does he intend to take to improve the public accountability of this money when it is spent? Can he ensure that none of it is spent on imported machine tools?

Mr. Davies: In relation to the programme, details of which I have just given, it is not possible to discriminate against imported machine tools under international trading arrangements. I have every hope and expectation that a very large proportion of this money will go to home manufactured machine tools.

Sir R. Cary: On 28th April my right hon. Friend made a very helpful state

ment in Manchester about the Bill which he intended to introduce to give financial aid to the regions. Will that help the machine tool and engineering industries in the Manchester area?

Mr. Davies: Yes; there is no reason why the arrangements which were those largely contained in the statement I made to the House on 22nd March should not apply to the machine tool industry. Indeed, I imagine that the machine tool industry itself will be coming forward with good inquiries on this subject.

Mr. Benn: In view of the very great anxiety in the industry, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether there is any progress with the pre-production order scheme which guarantees the money spent on British machine tools? Will he give the House an estimate of the amount he is now making available which is likely to be spent on machine tools from abroad under a Government scheme to help the British industry?

Mr. Davies: I cannot make any "guestimate" about the amount which will be spent on machine tools from abroad, but I should think it will be a very small proportion. The response to the pre-production scheme has not been as great as one would have hoped and it has not been an extensive help to the industry so far.

Regional Incentives

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the proposed duration of the present package of regional incentives offered to industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): As announced in the White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development, Cmnd. 4942, the Government intend to maintain the new system at least until the transitional period of entry to Europe is over, that is to 1st January, 1978.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Under-Secretary of State concede, having learned lessons from two rapid changes in regional policy, that the House should consider the promotion of a Select Committee on regional policy? Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. and hon. Friends with that end in view?

Mr. Grant: I should think that is not necessarily the general view, in view of the recent announcement and the fact that a Bill will soon be brought before the House to implement it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a combination of bribes for the establishment of branch factories and the provision of taxpayers' subsidies for operations not obviously enjoying the prospect of commercial viability was not very successful when tried before? Therefore, will he not rule out the posibility of reviewing the operation of this package in less than six years?

Mr. Grant: To give certainty to industry, we stand by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In asking the first part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend probably overlooked the fact that the incentives we offer are three times more beneficial to profitable firms than to non-profitable firms.

Mr. Dell: Although assurances have been given about the duration of the new system of regional incentives, no assurances have been given, as far as I am aware, about the level of grants. As it is six weeks since the Chancellor made his Budget statement, may I ask what assurances have been given in that respect?

Mr. Grant: I have said that we should maintain the system. The level of assistance is now very generous and I cannot foresee that any substantial increase would be justified.

Concorde

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest estimates of the subsonic noise levels for Concorde.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will obtain a progress report from the manufacturers and make a statement upon the work being done on reducing the noise levels of Concorde at landing and take-off to no worse than those produced by Trident III; BAC1-11, Boeing 747–200B, and Tristar, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): Considerable effort is being devoted to reduce

Concorde's engine noise to the lowest practicable level and regular progress reports are received by the Department from the manufacturers. But it has always been recognised that it would not be practicable to reduce the noise to the levels of those aircraft mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe). The manufacturers' estimates are that at entry into service Concorde's noise will be comparable to that of Boeing 707, DC8 and VC10.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there is very great concern among people living near London Airport about the amount of noise that Concorde will make on take-off and landing? I believe that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has given an assurance that efforts will be made to try to keep the noise of Concorde to the level of the Boeing 707 and the VCIO, but is he aware that those two aircraft are the noisiest of their own generation of jets, and if Concorde is to be even noisier than they are, or at least if the noise of Concorde cannot be kept to the level of their noise, it will be unacceptable to people living near London Airport?

Mr. Onslow: I know that there is great concern, some of which I believe is misplaced. The imputation which the hon. Gentleman makes, that Concorde will be even noisier, is not borne out by the answer that I have given. The noise of Concorde will be broadly comparable, and the figures which are available in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) last Thursday give the precise measurements.

Mr. Adley: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the DC 850 is considerably noisier than the Boeing 707 or the VC 10? Would he not also agree that the anti-social noises of which people rightly complain are the noises of flyover and approach as aircraft come in to land and take off? Would he not further agree that Concorde's noise problem will be sideline noise at the airport, and that it is not the airport mechanics who complain of noise?

Mr. Onslow: I commend my hon. Friend to look again at the figures given last Thursday relating to approach and take-off. As regards sideline noises, the


manufacturers forecast that the Concorde will be broadly comparable to existing types. This means that its place in the scale will he between the Boeing 707 and the VC10.

Mr. Mason: It is unfortunate that the noise certification scheme came into being after the 1966 Lancaster House noise conference. At that time Concorde's airframe and aero engines were being produced and were not caught up in the scheme. But at the moment, comparing it with present civilian aircraft, the Concorde will be among the noisiest on takeoff and flyover and the second noisiest on landing. Therefore, is it not incumbent upon the Government to explain what progress is being made towards a quieter engine and in what time scale?

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman has had a very substantial explanation given to him already. We are doing our utmost to quieten the aircraft, and I deprecate these alarmist statements that he insists on making.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the latest estimate for development costs of the Concorde supersonic transport aircraft.

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent to date on Concorde; and what is the latest estimate for total development costs.

Mr. John Davies: I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 4th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 207–8.]

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may we known whether the rise of £115 million since December, 1970, means that the United Kingdom will have to find another £57 million? Further, could some light be shed on the "additional development tasks" put down in Thursday's answer at £25 million, and, in particular, how much of this money has been spent on quieting?

Mr. Davies: First, may I set the figures right with my hon. Friend? In fact, unless my mathematics are sorely wrong, the increase since December, 1970, is £85

million, the figure having risen from £885 million to £970 million. It is correct to suppose that the broad allocation of cost between the two partners is equivalent.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the Secretary of State be making any form of operating subsidy available to BOAC for the operation of Concorde? In view of the almost £1,000 million now being spent on Concorde, would it not be the final insult if an operating subsidy to fly business men to and from New York were to be added to the money already spent?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the manufacturers of the aircraft are in negotiation with BOAC. BOAC has made no request to me for a subsidy, so the matter has not arisen so far as I am concerned; but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall be keeping the matter under careful review.

Mr. Millan: In view of the effect of the increased costs on the economics of Concorde's operation, and the continued uncertainty about supersonic flying rights and landing rights, is it not clear that an order placed by BOAC within the next few months must be done on other than a normal commercial basis, and this must be obvious to other airlines as well? In the circumstances, is it not time that we had a White Paper about all this and a debate in the House, before going further with the project, so that the right hon. Gentleman may distinguish between those of us who would like to see Concorde successful but want far more information than the Government have so far given and those whom he considers are concerned simply with "knocking" the aircraft?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is rather ungenerous to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace last week. I thought that he replied most fully to the right hon. Member for Barnsley and gave a wide range of information. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to go into the uncertain field of hypothesis, and that I am not prepared to do.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not this development money well spent, in that, in the 1970s, if airlines such as Air France, TWA, Pan-Am and BOAC do order Concorde, they will at last have a balanced fleet, allowing them to have


Concorde aircraft which will cream off premium traffic and also wide-bodied airliners more suitable to leisure traffic?

Mr. Davies: I believe that Concorde will be enormously welcome to a very important part of the travelling public.

Steel Industry

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a general direction to the British Steel Corporation to take full advantage of the opportunities presented to them by the development of North Sea oil.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): No, Sir, the British Steel Corporation is well aware of the opportunities afforded by this development.

Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the type of complacent answer which we have come to expect from his Department? Is he further aware that of the platform steel required for developing North Sea oil, the British Steel Corporation is supplying only 40 per cent. and that 60 per cent. is coming from Europe? The British Steel Corporation pleads that it cannot meet the delivery dates and that the schedules are far too tight. Yet the European firms can meet them. Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into this?

Mr. Boardman: I think the hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the British Steel Corporation. In the face of very fierce international competition it has secured some large orders—for example, the BP overland pipeline, amounting to £5·5 million. I see no reason why the Corporation should not gain further orders.

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is yet able to make an announcement on future investment in the steel industry.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to make a statement on the second report of the Joint Steering Group of the Steel Industry.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement on future investment in the steel industry.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement at the end of Questions.

Luton Aerodrome

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now designate Luton aerodrome under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1971.

Mr. Onslow: My officials are discussing the question of night movements in 1973 with the authorities at Luton. Meanwhile I see no need to take a decision on designation.

Mr. Allason: If my hon. Friend's officials are discussing night movements with Luton, may I express the hope that they are informing Luton that the Government will not tolerate night take-offs from Luton in the same way as they allow night take-offs from Heathrow? Is my hon. Friend aware that the operators at Luton are very near to producing their programmes for 1973 and that unless they have a firm statement from the Government about what steps are going to be taken, they are very liable to produce an even bigger programme than this year? That programme is quite intolerable to people living under the flight path

Mr. Onslow: I do not think I could hold out any hope to my hon. Friend of a complete ban on night movements from Luton in 1973. If operators are forming plans at this stage they would be well advised to wait until we have completed these discussions because they might find that they had to change their plans.

Motor Car Industry (Pollution Control)

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what study he has made of the economic effects on the car industry of proposals for legislation requiring greater pollution control: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The only proposal so far announced is the control of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon exhaust emission from cars. It will have little effect on car prices and no adverse economic effect on the industry. Full account will be taken of the economic effects of any further proposals.

Mr. Carter: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is considerable international agreement on the need to control pollution from motor cars? Will he therefore enter into early negotiations with the industry to ensure that legislation can be introduced at the earliest opportunity? In doing so, will he bear in mind that any increase in the manufacturing input into motor cars would greatly increase the number of employment opportunities in the motor-car industry?

Mr. Grant: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. The Department of the Environment takes the lead in this issue, but my Department works in close cooperation with that Department, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be the fullest possible consultation with industry before the new measures are announced.

Mr. Biffen: In the consultations which the Minister will be having with the Department of the Environment, will he point out that the motorist is already a fairly heavily laden member of society and that any inhibitions laid upon motor manufacturers should derive from proven health hazards and not from any trendy concern with pollution?

Mr. Grant: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will convey those remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Electricity Boards (Resale Prices)

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will issue a direction to area electricity boards to revise the formula used for calculating maximum resale prices allowable under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957.

Mr. Tom Boardman: No, Sir. Determining the formula is a matter for the boards themselves.

Dr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the formula used for this purpose by all area boards in England and Wales allows landlords to make a legal profit during periods of heavy consumption of one-tenth of a new penny for each additional unit of electricity consumed? Will he make this practice illegal?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman knows from correspondence which he has

received that the overcharge that is made of 1p is over the minimum rate, which is to compensate for the higher rate that is charged on initial units. This is reckoned to be a fair average and does not amount to an illegal profit.

Breakfast Cereals

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make use of his powers under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, to rectify the anomaly whereby breakfast cereals in flake form must be sold in standardised quantities while other forms are excluded from this requirement.

Mr. Onslow: The Department will be discussing with the manufacturers whether it would be practicable and convenient to extend the present arrangements to some other types of breakfast cereal.

Miss Fookes: In thanking my hon. Friend for that slightly more favourable reply than I usually receive, may I ask him whether he would not agree that it is time that one Minister was responsible for consumer protection rather than the variety to which we have become accustomed, including the Minister for Aerospace on the last occasion?

Mr. Onslow: I am, of course, answering in my capacity as Under-Secretary of State to my right hon. Friend the Minister. If my hon. Friend is grateful for that advance, I shall be happy to discuss the matter with her over lunch, tea or dinner on any mutually convenient occasion.

Mr. Milne: When the Under-Secretary has recovered from his previous answer, will he, in view of the awakening interest of his back benchers in the subject of consumer protection, look at the possibility of setting up the Consumer Council again or some counterpart to it?

Mr. Onslow: I am aware of my hon. Friends' interest in this matter, but I do not think that it necessarily extends as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Aerospace Exports

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of British aerospace exports in 1971.

Mr. Onslow: Figures published in the December, 1971, issue of the Overseas Trade Statistics show that exports of aircraft, engines and parts—excluding second-hand aircraft—totalled £303 million.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend affirm that these excellent figures have continued into January and February, 1972, and will he affirm also that they are due to work or projects started under the Conservative Government of 1959–64, and that very little has occurred since?

Mr. Onslow: I am very hopeful that the level will be sustained and even improved over the next few years. Obviously, export orders for aircraft depend upon decisions taken some time ago, and I am bound to reflect that if the TSR2 had not been cancelled the figures might have been even better.

Mining Subsidence Damage (Compensation)

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the results of his special review into compensation for the victims of mining subsidence damage: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Much work remains to be done before any conclusion can be announced.

Mr. Butler: The news that the special review is in hand will be welcomed by thousands of families in my constituency and other mining areas, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the provisions of the 1957 Act do not allow full compensation for the financial costs involved, let alone the great physical and mental suffering? Will he give an assurance that, when the review is complete, he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to allow significantly greater compensation than that provided for under the 1957 Act?

Mr. Boardman: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in this matter both in his constituency and generally. Legislation will be introduced if it should prove necessary, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the issues are complex and that it will take time for the review to be completed. Consultations are being held with local authority associations and others.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Minister take it that in the Whitefield area of Lancashire a serious situation has arisen, in that neighbours of mine tried to sell their house but found that the intended purchaser could not obtain a mortgage because of the danger of subsidence, and all they could elicit from the National Coal Board was an assurance that it would meet its obligations? This is wholly unsatisfactory, since the vendors simply could not sell their house. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, make the strongest possible representations to the National Coal Board to ensure that it fulfils its obligations to the letter of the law?

Mr. Boardman: That point is one of the matters which will be considered in the review. In advance of the review, I cannot say what changes, if any, will be made.

Mr. J. T. Price: Everyone with experience of the problem of mining subsidence agrees that the present situation is not entirely satisfactory, but will the hon. Gentleman take it that, to my knowledge, the 1957 Act has been administered in a most liberal way by the National Coal Board, and that in many cases people who have suffered damage from old mining operations, sometimes going back as far as 100 years, have received compensation from the Board out of its own resources for troubles left behind by the old coal owners who never paid a penny for anything?

Mr. Boardman: I am sure that those remarks will be noted by the National Coal Board

Airports (Noise Levels)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates his Department has made of the effect on overall noise levels in the vicinity of airports which will be made by the increasing use of quiet engines and improved operating techniques by the year 1985

Mr. Onslow: The latest estimates are included in the document. "Maplin Airport—Choice of Sites for Runways ", which was published on 12th April by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They relate to conventional take-off and landing aircraft, including supersonic aircraft, and


show an expected average noise reduction in 1985 of more than 8 PNdB per aircraft movement. They do not take into account improved operating techniques.

Mr. Tebbit: But will not my hon. Friend agree that, as those figures published by the Secretary of State show that the figures given to the Roskill Commission were in considerable technical error, we ought now to consider whether the best way to spend public money on improving the environment is to build noisy motorways through East London to get to a quiet airport?

Mr. Onslow: I recognise my hon. Friend's constituency interest in this matter, but I should point out that it will be of great benefit not only to the users of the airport at Maplin but also to residents around Heathrow and Gatwick that we may expect this considerable reduction in overall noise levels.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Under-Secretary of State repudiate the innuendo concealed in this Question and in a great deal of the stuff which has come out today? If there are engines available quieter than those now being used, where are they, and who is selling them?

Mr. Onslow: I did not detect any such innuendo. Quiet engines have been developed for wide-bodied subsonic aircraft, but we cannot at the moment forecast any massive introduction into service of similar engines for smaller subsonic aircraft or supersonic aircraft.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What does all that mean? I also have a constituency interest. To the plain man, does it mean that the aircraft travelling over my part of England will be less noisy in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Onslow: It will mean that some of them will certainly be less noisy, but my hon. Friend seems to have an equal interest with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) in the development of quieter motor cars.

Confectionery

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce an order to compel manufacturers of chocolate bars and similar confectionery to state the correct weight on such products, where this is less than three ounces.

Mr. Onslow: It would be unrealistic to consider any change in the quantity marking provisions at the present time. This is because of draft EEC directives covering chocolate and sugar confectionery bars which would raise this limit slightly. In the discussions in Brussels, in which the United Kingdom has been participating, officials have had consumer interests very much in mind.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary accept that in this question I am not so much concerned with aero-space as with space where there should be Aero? Will he not agree that notwithstanding all the EEC regulations the people who purchase smaller units of confectionery are entitled at least to the same limited measures of consumer protection as are afforded to the purchasers of larger units, especially as the former are usually children who in their simplicity believe that a new size means a bigger size, when often it can mean a smaller and dearer size?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure my hon. Friend knows there is a difficulty here. But per-haps she will welcome the information that some manufacturers already declare the weight on smaller bars voluntarily and I expect that, like me, she would like to see the practice followed more widely.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: From the Under-Secretary's original reply, are we to take it that even though this is a very good Question, a matter which should be acted upon, we can do nothing because the Community has decided otherwise and that we must be dictated to by the Common Market even before we join?

Mr. Onslow: I thought the hon. Member had probably given up chocolate and sugar confectionery. He is wrong in his conclusion. There is plenty we can do and particularly we can encourage manufacturers to go voluntarily beyond the limits which are already set by law.

Debts (Finance Houses and Retailers)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total debt outstanding to finance houses and retailers at the end of January, 1972; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: The information is given in Table 160 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics for March, 1972. This shows that instalment debt owing to finance houses and retailers totalled £1,643 million.

Mr. Rost: Is this not the highest figure ever and does it not prove that the Government are getting the economy moving again? Will my right hon. Friend tell us when in the past four years the figures were at their lowest?

Mr. Davies: I do not have available the statistics to which my hon. Friend refers. The figure for January was exceeded in February and exceeded yet again in March, so it is correct to say that as an indicator of the level of trade the figures are still fairly encouraging.

Mr. Eadie: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what rate of interest was being paid by borrowers to the finance houses?

Mr. Davies: The rate of interest would depend upon the nature of the article. the term of the loan and the validity of the borrower.

Doorstep Salesmen

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to protect consumers from the approaches and techniques of doorstep salesmen.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The Government are considering very sympathetically those recommendations of the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit which relate to door-to-door selling. The Government have no other plans for legislation in this field; they consider that adverse publicity is one of the most effective means of countering undesirable door-step selling techniques.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that, on the contrary, I have plans for dealing with this matter and that I shall be introducing a Ten-Minute Rule Bill on the subject tomorrow, which I am sure he will look at sympathetically? But is the Minister also aware that there are large wealthy organisations which deliberately instruct their salesmen to conceal the fact that they are selling

something in order to worm their way into people's homes? Once they are in they indulge in an equally dishonest form of patter again to conceal the fact that they are selling something in order to induce the unwitting housewife to part with a vast sum of money, usually for goods which are pretty useless. Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that legislation is needed at least to put the housewife on an equal footing?

Mr. Noble: I was aware of the hon. Member's interest and of his intention to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill tomorrow. Perhaps we should wait and see what the Bill contains before I give any indication of the Government's approval or disapproval.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend the Minister bear in mind that in recent years there have been increasing encroachments on the liberty of the individual on the doorstep and that he should resist the blandishments of salesmen. from whatever quarter they may come, including Accrington?

Mr. Noble: Yes. In the whole of last year only three complaints of this sort came to my Department. So far this year the rate has increased because already we have had three, but it is not a very great number.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Minister aware that it is quite ridiculous more than 12 months after the Crowther Report to say that the Government are only" considering sympathetically "action that Crowther then thought should be taken? Will the Government introduce legislation? If so, when will it be? Will it be this Session or next? If it is next Session, it will be more than two years after the Crowther Report before the Government eventually get their legislation through.

Mr. Noble: Quite a lot of legislation has been going through the House and there will be quite a lot next year. I cannot say therefore when this will be dealt with.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister bear in mind that not as many housewives are as hen-witted as some hon. Members seem to imagine and that there is a limit to the amount of consumer protection they need?

Mr. Noble: I am certainly aware of what my hon. Friend says. This is reflected in the fact that only three complaints were made to my Department in the whole of last year. This is a serious problem but it is getting very much better.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is it not a matter of wonder that in answer to a previous Question we saw hon. Members opposite regarding the piling-up of huge debts by consumers as a significant mark of their party's success? Would it not be equally logical for the Minister now to give every encouragement to doorstep salesmen in order to carry on the alleged success of his Government?

Mr. Noble: No. Sir.

Hovercraft and Hydrofoil (Certification)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the respective certification fees for the British-made HM2 sidewall hovercraft and the Italian-made H57 hydrofoil; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Onslow: Operation of the HM2 hovercraft is at present regulated by a permit to fly, costing £1, backed by a Certificate of Construction and Performance, issued free. The H57 hydrofoil requires a ship's passenger certificate and, under certain circumstances, a radio certificate at a total cost of £147·20 plus any surveyors' attendance costs abroad. New fees based on actual costs for certification of both hovercraft and hydrofoils will be introduced shortly.

Mr. Mitchell: When these new fees are introduced, will the Minister make sure there is no discouragement of the British-made hovercraft compared with its direct rival, the hydrofoil?

Mr. Onslow: I think the important thing is that the new fees should represent accurately the costs involved and I do not know that the manufacturers, who have been consulted, I believe, in the drawing-up of the scale of fees, are as anxious about this as the hon. Member may suggest.

Regional Policies (Scotland)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Indus

try what evidence is now available showing the beneficial results in Scotland of the new regional policies.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Department's Office for Scotland has received a number of inquiries concerning projects that may benefit under the new policies.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that is an extremely vague answer, even from this Government? Does he not recognise that the recent unemployment figures, seasonally adjusted, are still showing an increase, and can he give up-to-date figures showing evidence of increased investment in Scotland?

Mr. Grant: So far from an increase, unemployment in Scotland fell slightly in April, although it did not fall enough. But I recognise entirely the problem in Scotland and it is precisely for this reason that the new policies were announced. It is far too early, in advance of having the Bill passed, to expect anything more than I have indicated, namely, that a number of inquiries have been made which will benefit from the new policies.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister explain what benefits are expected from the Government's decision for the second time to raise the level of control over IDC certificates in the non-development areas, particularly in areas like mine, where all the incoming industry has been of 10,000 sq. ft. or less?

Mr. Grant: The IDC limitations were lifted for relatively small projects because it was found that in the main those projects were not susceptible of being moved to development areas. The IDC policy still remains an essential part of the Government's regional policy, but it would not help the regions, particularly Scotland, to kill off the seed corn of small firms in other parts of the country.

Mr. Alan Williams: What improvement in the unemployment situation does the right hon. Gentleman expect for Scotland by next winter? Is he aware that the Minister dealing with the regions, speaking in South Wales at the weekend, made it clear that there would be little or no improvement in the unemployment situation in Wales by next winter? Will there be any improvement in Scotland?

Mr. Grant: I will not make any forecasts about unemployment, but it should


be quite apparent that the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in our new policy, which was the biggest-ever incentive to invest, Will assist British industry and thus, in due course, help in dealing with the problem of unemployment.

Coal

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what total tonnage of coal, deep mined and opencast, was mined in Great Britain during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1972; what tonnage was imported in the same period; and what was the total cost of such imports, cost, insurance and freight value at British ports.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Total coal production, deep mined and opencast, in the 52 weeks ended 22nd April was 119 million tons. In the 12 months to the end of March, 5 million tons were imported at a total c.i.f. cost of £49 million. Production figures are published in the Department's Weekly Statistical Statement and imports in the monthly Overseas Trade Statistics.

Sir G. Nabarro: I read the figures assiduously every week. But will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the £49 million of coal imports is a dreadful and unnecessary burden on the balance of payments? Can he say what estimates he has made of tonnage needed to bring total coal output up to requirements in the next 12 months in order to eliminate imports of coal altogether?

Mr. Boardman: The question whether it is wise to import is a matter of judgment by merchants and consumers. The total amount of the imports is marginal. My lion. Friend will be aware that imports of certain high-grade coals can help towards the consumption of lower-grade domestic coals in generating stations.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that in my consituency it was announced over the weekend that vast new seams of coal have been discovered? Will he consider ways and means of trying to exploit these new seams and help deal with the question of importing coal?

Mr. Boardman: I am sure that that is a matter which the National Coal Board will be looking at with considerable interest.

English Channel (Navigation)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make the new separation schemes in the Channel mandatory for British ships.

Mr. Noble: I expect the necessary Statutory Instrument to be made this month to come into operation in the late summer.

Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate any further measures of control in Channel waters to help avoid collisions and to provide a safe seaway?

Mr. Noble: A firm of consultants is investigating the technical feasibility of introducing a Channel navigation service. We expect to receive its report in June. But that is as much as I can say about definite plans now.

Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider extending the pilotage area and defining more clearly what are dangerous cargoes, especially now that there are the super-tankers and other hazardous vessels, and then introducing compulsory pilotage on those vessels?

Mr. Noble: These are different questions, but I am very much aware of them, and in due course I hope to be able to help with what the right hon. Gentleman asks.

European Economic Community

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in negotiations with the European Economic Community regarding textiles.

Mr. Noble: The Community does not yet have a common commercial policy for textiles generally. We have begun discussions with the Commission about the underlying principles of such a policy which will take time to evolve.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if quotas had not been introduced this year import penetration of the home textiles market would have rocketed from 53 per cent. to around 85 per cent.? As it is clear from the Common Market negotiations that quotas cannot be maintained after entry, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to prevent


the flooding of the home market and the complete disruption of the cotton textile industry?

Mr. Noble: My Department has spent a great deal of time doing everything it can to make certain that that should not happen. In our discussions with the Common Market countries, these considerations are very clearly at the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend heard from the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which seems to be very edgy on this matter? It seems to think that the Government have sold the pass, when it would not appear from a recent answer that that has happened. Can my right hon. Friend give the Campaign any assurances on the matter?

Mr. Noble: The matter was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in his answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 20th March and in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 21st April. We certainly have not sold the pass, and have no intention of doing so.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Minister aware that I have been battering my head against this problem for the past 15 years at least, I am sorry to say with very little success under either Government? Whether a Labour Government or a Conservative Government have been in power, the impression has been left in Lancashire that textiles are an expendable industry and that we have gone from bad to worse, until at last a full stop was put to the process by the restoration of quotas. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a time when 55 per cent. of the British home market is taken by imports from under-developed and semi-developed countries, some of our European would-be partners in the Common Market are importing about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. at most, and refuse to take any step, except to pass pious resolutions, to help those countries? This country, my county of Lancashire in particular, is completely fed up with the indifference of all Governments to this problem.

Mr. Noble: I am very well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the pro

lem, for at least 14 years. I am grateful to him for saying that the introduction of quotas was of benefit. I think he also appreciates that, as we heard in a debate not long ago, some textile imports—I think the figure is 50 per cent., and not 55 per cent., but I would not quarrel with him about this—are necessary if we are to discharge our responsibility to developing countries.

Mr. Normanton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present burden of imports is many times in excess of that in the Common Market countries? Will he please stand firm on the assurance he gave the House on 8th December that the interests of the industry would at least be maintained? The discussions taking place in Brussels relate to cotton textile imports. Will my right hon. Friend give similar assurances that he will give equal support in regard to man-made fibre imports, including polyster, which is coming into this country at an ever-increasing rate?

Mr. Noble: I am very well aware of the problems of polyester and other yarns, and I shall do all I can to protect my hon. Friend's interests in this regard.

Mr. Benn: As the industry in question is likely to be one of the first affected by the move of decision-making power from London to Brussels, will the Minister undertake to provide the very fullest information to the House and the industry on the progress of the negotiations, including the publication of documents submitted to him by members of the European Economic Community, so that all may know exactly where they stand at this juncture?

Mr. Noble: I shall try to keep the House informed at appropriate moments, but I could not publish every document as soon as it was received, or before it had been properly considered.

Joint Stock Company Management

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has held with officials of the Bank of England in regard to the efficiency of joint stock company management; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: My Department will remain in touch with the Bank on this as


on other matters of common interest. My hon. Friend will of course recall the initiatives announced by the CBI and the Governor on 15th March.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is there not a danger that if certain institutional shareholders or their nominess are given special access to company managements or to confidential information two classes of share holder will develop? Would it not be better to introduce some form of management audit by getting the non-executive directors to perform a more positive function?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will of course realise that the work contemplated by the CBI specifically concerns non-executive directors. The two studies are therefore proceeding in parallel but in close sympathy, and they should produce the kind of information which should be useful in seeing how the future can best be organised.

Trade Figures (Reporting)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now change the system of reporting trade figures by giving these on a quarterly instead of a monthly basis.

Mr. Noble: No, Sir. The monthly trade figures, though subject to irregular movements and special influences, are of value if properly used and interpreted.

Mr. Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall a previous supplementary answer, when his right hon. Friend said that he had a certain sympathy with this point of view? Will he look at it again? Publication of these erratic monthly figures does great discredit to this country because certain people take unscrupulous advantage of the odd monthly changes.

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend in this matter. The problem is that practically all the developed countries produce their figures monthly, as do international organisations such as the United Nations and the OECD. Thus, if we were to move to three-monthly figures, it would be open to almost everybody to speculate from other sources what our figures might be. This might well do more damage.

Mr. Kaufman: Recalling the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ludicrous and discredited accusations against the then Labour Government of fiddling the trade figures, will the right hon. Gentleman resist all attempts by his non. Friends to fiddle the trade figures on behalf of the Government as the trade balance inevitably declines towards the next General Election?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that observation needs any comment from me.

Hotels (Fire Precautions)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in view of his responsibility for tourism, what effect he expects the Fire Precautions Act to have upon small hotels; and what estimate he has made of the number of hotels which will be required to undertake work directly as a result of the implementation of the Act.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I cannot give an estimate. Questions about the requirements of the Fire Precautions Act are matters for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am aware of the concern over the implementation of the Act and I have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I understand that he has arranged to have further discussions with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members whose constituents are affected.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help in this matter. Is not the fact that he cannot give me figures an indication that perhaps the Home Office rather hastily introduced this legislation without the fullest consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Treasury? Will he undertake to have further urgent consultations not only with the Home Office but also with the Treasury about the question of availability of loans to the people concerned?

Mr. Grant: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says and will pursue discussions with my colleagues. On the question of loans, I saw a Press report that the British Hotel and Restaurants Association is making arrangements for a system of loans, at possibly favourable


rates, to cover work on fire precautions. I hope that this comes to fruition.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman have discussions with his colleagues responsible for tourism and catering in Scotland?

Mr. Grant: Yes, Sir, and with the tourist boards themselves.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would not be realistic, or necessary, to insist on the installation in existing small hotels and boarding houses of the same type of fire fighting apparatus and the same means of escape as are required in new, modern hotels? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to make it clear that the code is intended to be applied in a reasonable and commonsense way?

Mr. Grant: I am sure that it will be the wish of my right hon. Friend to apply the code in a reasonable and commonsense way. In any event, I am sure that my right hon. Friend understands the point which my hon. Friend has made.

Industrial Development Certificates (Livingston)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial development certificates were issued to industrialists in the Livingston new town area since it was granted special development area status.

Mr. Anthony Grant: None, but 1,800 jobs in manufacturing industry are expected to arise in the Livingston employment exchange area over the next four years from known industrial projects. Total unemployed is at present 570.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the incoming population in the new town is not increasing more than job provision? Can he say what sort of co-ordinating function his Department has in this matter?

Mr. Grant: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I think that it is ill-founded. We work in close conjunction with the Department of the Environment in this respect and it is far too early to suggest that more people will come in than can be catered for by Livingston. I am pleased to say that Livingston has succeeded in attracting a

variety of manufacturing firms, many of them new to Scotland, and that it is the focal point of an extensive surrounding area.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is there any evidence that any of the special development areas created last year have benefited disproportionately, as compared with other parts of development areas, from this status? If there is, will my lion. Friend publish it?

Mr. Grant: I have no such evidence.

International Computers Limited

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he hopes to make a statement on future Government help for International Computers Limited.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I have nothing to add at present to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on 17th April, when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development said that an announcement would be made as soon as is practicable.—[Vol. 835, c. 25.]

Mr. Dalyell: Why is the computer industry being kept waiting like this?

Mr. Grant: I do not believe that the computer industry is necessarily being kept waiting unduly. This is an extremely complex matter and one which merits the most careful consideration by the Government, which is what it is receiving.

RB211

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his decision on the funding of an up-rated version of the RB211.

Mr. John Davies: The Chairman of Lockheed raised this with me when I met him on 10th April. I am in discussion with Rolls-Royce (1971) about this question and have just received proposals from them.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the Prime Minister's changes in the Government's team, this problem goes on just the same, and that if we are to get a proper production run for this fine aircraft it is necessary for a full range of planes to be


offered? Since Lockheed proposes that the plane should be built, what is the reason for the delay by the Government?

Mr. Davies: There is no delay at all. As the hon. Gentleman perhaps knows, it is Lockheed's hope to be able to announce its intention to proceed with a stretched version later this year. Lockheed would not say that there is any delay on the part of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., or on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It would not be the case.

Mr. Millan: Does not the decision whether to go ahead depend largely on orders for the present TriStar? In relation to the BAB and the possibility of an order, since the intention seems to be that an order will be placed, is there not a case for its being placed soon? Does the BAB appreciate that point?

Mr. Davies: The BAB fully understands the exact problem which faces both it and the manufacturers and it is taking an exceedingly responsible view in relation to it, as it is in relation to the expenditure of public money.

Mr. Rost: Is not the present TriStar's success closely related to the ability of Lockheed to offer a stretched version?

Mr. Davies: I think that it is, generally speaking, regarded as a sign of a successful aircraft to be able to engender a family of aircraft. This I appreciate fully. But at the moment the need is to ensure that the present version is a highly successful commercial venture.

Generating Stations (Natural Gas)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications he has received for natural gas to be used to fuel generating stations.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Approval was given, in 1967 and 1970, for two power stations—Hams Hall C and West Thurrock—to be converted to dual coal/gas firing. Apart from an old application, now in abeyance, to convert the oil-fired station at South Denes, there are no outstanding applications from the CEGB.

Mr. Moyle: In considering any future application, will the hon. Gentleman be

guided by the fact that it is an uneconomic use of natural gas, since there are heavy losses in transmission from electricity?

Mr. Boardman: It is for the Central Electricity Generating Board to decide whether to apply for construction or conversion of power stations to use natural gas, and all the factors will be considered on their merits in any application.

Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Europe natural gas is being used in vast quantities for power stations? If the Europeans can do it. why cannot this be done here?

Mr. Boardman: The use of natural gas in Europe is well recognised. This is one of the factors which will be taken into account if the board makes the necessary application for conversion or construction.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he, or one of his Ministers, will pay an official visit to South Yorkshire and, particularly, those areas within that part of the county where male unemployment is at, near, or over the rate of 10 per cent.

Mr. Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development hopes to visit Leeds on 22nd May. Further visits to this and other assisted areas will follow as circumstances allow.

Mr. Hardy: Leeds is not in South Yorkshire. Before he visits Leeds or any other part of Yorkshire, will the Minister remind himself that several thousand jobs have been lost since the Government announced their change of regional policy? Therefore, when he visits Yorkshire and other areas in similar difficulties, will he be prepared to explain to the people in those areas exactly when unemployment will be reduced and why the Government took so long to change their regional policies?

Mr. Grant: When my right hon. Friend visits Leeds, or any other part of Yorkshire, he will engage in the fullest possible discussions, as I have. What is clear is that Yorkshire stands to gain greatly from the Government's new regional policies.

VIETNAM

Mr. Callaghan (by Private Notice): Mr. Callaghan (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a Statement on the steps Her Majesty's Government are taking as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference to assist in effecting a cessation of hostilities in Vietnam.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Apart from approaches that I have made in recent months, I have made two approaches in the last five weeks to the Soviet Foreign Minister, the most recent on 20th April, proposing a reconvening of the Geneva Conference with a view to bringing about an end to the fighting through a negotiated settlement. To both approaches the Soviet answer has been that the proposal was not practicable.

Mr. Callaghan: I accept that if the Russians will not come that makes life a little difficult when trying to get discussions going. Would the Minister represent to the United States that, to those who feel for and understand her position, her present policy is leading her to a dead end? Would it not be appropriate for him to indicate to the United States, in terms which he thinks right, that the people of this country could not accept any escalation of the bombing, which would mean tremendous human suffering without leading to any tangible benefits to the ends of American policy?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon Gentleman is right on the first point. Under the 1954 Geneva Agreement, the co-Chairmen must take joint decisions. However, much as I want a conference, I cannot have it unless Mr. Gromyko will co-operate.
The right hon. Gentleman will not ignore the fact that the United States has offered negotiations without conditions. It is for the North Vietnamese to decide whether to accept those negotiations. The United States has gone as far as it can.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Despite the total inaction of the United Nations, can there be any doubt in this case that this is an act of aggression by North Vietnam against South Vietnam? There is no

longer any pretence anywhere of spontaneous rebellion, peasant revolt, or anything of that kind. Is not the position of the United States entirely correct, and as correct as it was when the United States led resistance to aggression in Korea? Is not the position of the United States provided for under the United Nations Charter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend is right. If the South Vietnamese are left out of the picture altogether, the North Vietnamese have violated in a big way the frontiers of Cambodia and Laos. This is an invasion across international frontiers. It is an invasion across the demarcation line which was laid down by the 1954 Agreement.

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting that either co-Chairman has a right of veto on the convening of a conference, without prejudice to the current Paris talks, would the Prime Minister agree that the chances and possibilities of escalation present wide dangers to the world at large. Would he consider the possibility of an approach to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to see whether some body of neutrals, agreeable to both sides, might try to get some form of negotiation going in default of the Geneva Conference being reconvened?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been approached on this matter and has found himself unable to act because the North Vietnamese will not recognise in any circumstances the right of the United Nations to intervene.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not essential for my right hon. Friend to try to impress on the Russian Government that unless and until the North Vietnamese desist from their aggression there can be no hope at all for South-East Asia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Soviet Government are in a difficult position. It is their armament in North Vietnam that has made this offensive possible. It is an offensive different in nature from anything that has happened in recent years in that it is an invasion by North Vietnamese regular troops across dividing lines laid down by an international conference.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would the Government appeal to President Nixon to stop the saturation bombing of civilian targets which, according to our radio, is taking place now? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman ask President Nixon forthwith for an early and definite date for the withdrawal of land, air and naval forces from Indo-China, since their presence can only prolong the agony?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer must be "no" to that question. The Americans have offered a peace conference without any pre-conditions. I do not see why the North Vietnamese, if they wish peace and a final settlement of the Vietnamese problem, should not accept that proposition.

Mr. Blaker: The North Vietnamese are clearly in breach of their own undertakings in successive conferences. Is it not rather extraordinary that the Opposition should criticise the Americans and never criticise the North Vietnamese?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that this has been true of the Opposition leadership. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) when in office was careful not to condemn American aggression.

Mr. Callaghan: We are concerned with the interests of the people of Vietnam and also with our friendship with the United States. We do not wish to see the United States led into paths which will worsen the situation and make our relations more difficult. Is it not the task of friends—I admit that candid friends are a damned nuisance—to point out to friends the policy they are following if there is to be an escalation leading to much worse aggression?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Which course would be worse the whole of Vietnam being over-run by the Communists, or American intervention? I do not feel inclined to make representations to the President of the United States on this matter. We have no status in this war and no right to intervene except as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, which I hope may be convened to bring about peace.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that American policy now being followed can lead only to the complete wiping out of the whole Viet-

nam? What kind of pacification or anything else can come from that?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We would far rather see a negotiated peace. I cannot lay the blame for no negotiated peace on the shoulders of the United States.

Mr. Wilkinson: In further exchanges with the Russians, would my right hon. Friend bring to bear on them the fact that their position as co-Chairman is not improved in the eyes of the world by their further supply of military material to their aggressive allies in North Vietnam? The Americans have ensured our security by their endeavours in the past, and will do so in the future. We shall not be secure if they fail now in assisting their allies in the South.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have made many representations to Mr. Gromyko on this matter to reconvene the Geneva Conference. The way to get all foreign troops out of the area of South-East Asia is for the Soviet Union to agree to this course. They have compromised their position by giving armaments to the North Vietnamese to make this offensive possible.

Mr. Latham: I accept that the Foreign Secretary may apply different political judgments to many of us, but would he not at least agree that the situation in Indo-China is desperate and urgent and that it is vital, in the names of the people of the world and of humanity, that urgent representations should be made to President Nixon that at least what he does is shown to have some military relevance and not to be simply punitive revenge against the civilian population of the North?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. Gentleman could give me a convincing answer to why North Vietnam has refused President Nixon's offer for unconditional negotiations, I should find myself nearer his position.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Boardman—statement.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order arising out of the business we have already taken?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Mr. Speaker, it is about the statement we are now to have.

Mr. Speaker: I think that, perhaps, we had better have the statement first. Mr. Boardman.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the business we have just taken. I beg to give notice—which is what I thought that my hon. Friend was about to do—that we shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

STEEL INDUSTRY

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steel industry.
As the House knows, the British Steel Corporation already has approval to invest, in the current financial year, some £265 million compared with about £80 million in the year 1969–70. To ensure continuity of this high momentum of investment, provisional approval is now being given for a further £200 million to be committed towards the 1973–74 programme.
Investment in development of the main existing plants over the period 1970–71 to 1973–74 is now planned to reach, approximately, the following levels:



£million


Llanwern
90


Port Talbot
45


Scunthorpe (including Immingham Harbour)
250


South Teesside
130


Ravenscraig
55


The expenditure at these principal plants is, of course, in addition to substantial programmes of development elsewhere.
This substantial level of investment provides the background to the second report of the Joint Steering Group covering the BSC's prospects to 1980.
After careful review the Group, which, as the House will recall, included representatives both of Government Departments and of the British Steel Corporation, has reached the conclusion that the British Steel Corporation should, by 1980, aim at an increase in its capacity to a level within the range 28 to 36 million ingot tons.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Rubbish! Terrible!

Mr. Boardman: This revised target takes into account the need to ensure an adequate supply of steel to provide for the sustained rate of economic expansion which is envisaged for the years immediately ahead. It also takes into account assessments of future trends of steel worldwide, on which the Government have had separately the advice of external consultants. The British Steel Corporation, like the Government, agrees with this capacity target in its further work on its programme for modernisation and expansion.
The work on this programme is being continued as a matter of urgency, and the Corporation expects to be able to make firm strategic recommendations later in the year. The Government will, of course, be closely involved in the strategic decisions and, in particular, the extent and siting of any major steel developments to come into production before 1980. In reaching these decisions we shall have regional policy factors much in mind. It will be important to maintain flexibility to modify the programme as necessary in later years.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that progress is being made with arrangements for the regular reporting by the Corporation of performance against plans, and for the submission of investment proposals with adequate supporting data to enable the Government to reach firm conclusions on the Corporation's investment plans. These will help to clarify the responsibilities of Government and the Corporation in this area. In the meantime, the BSC is continuing its drive towards achieving greater efficiency.

Mr. Varley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, without discourtesy to him, we on this side of the House expected that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would make the statement? After all, it was he who set up the Joint Steering Group; it was he who created the uncertainty within the steel industry; it was he who was responsible for the four months' delay in the statement.
Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the statement does nothing to restore much-needed confidence within the steel industry? Can he say whether at last the Joint Steering Group's work is at an


end and that it will be set down, or will it continue further? Can he confirm that we shall not now get the long-promised green field steelworks and that that has been abandoned totally in favour of small, mini-steelworks? If that is so, what evidence is there that that is the right answer?
Will the hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about the production range mentioned in paragraph 5 of his statement? Does 28 million tons represent the pessimism of the Government and the 35 million tons the optimism of the British Steel Corporation? Even if that is so, has not the British Steel Corporation been beaten down from its original figure?
Finally, what are the estimates of the industry's long-term employment prospects? Surely the Government have made some estimates about this up to 1980 and beyond? Why have the Government so blatantly refused to consult the steel unions, when the Secretary of State a year ago promised that they would be consulted? In view of the seriousness of this statement, on an industry so crucial to the British economy, we shall want to debate this matter as soon as possible in Government time.

Mr. Boardman: On the question of delay, the hon. Gentleman will know that the report of the Joint Steering Group came forward towards the end of February. It involved very major decisions and it was right that it should be fully considered before the statement was made to the House today.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that this would undermine or show lack of confidence in the industry. But I remind him that I have just announced plans which involve a further £200 million expenditure on account for the year 1973–74, in addition to £265 million, the figure spent in the current year, and £242 million the previous year, all at 1971 survey prices, and this is over three times the level of expenditure authorised by the Labour Party after vesting date. This is a fair indication of the confidence that we on this side of the House have in this great industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Joint Steering Group was now set down. As I said in my statement, we are now

waiting for the British Steel Corporation to bring forward its strategic plans in the light of the forecast demand that has now been made. When we receive those plans, then will be the opportunity for the Government to consider them in depth, to have a view on the impact of this upon the industry, upon the regions and on other factors, and then to make a further decision in consultation or after heating what the Corporation has put Forward. No decision is yet made about brown field or green field sites. This is the next step of decision making once the forecast has been agreed and the range has been agreed by the British Steel Corporation, which participated in this throughout and agreed the bracket. It is only fair to say that the Corporation veers towards the top end of the bracket, but it accepts the forecast that has seen put forward.
The hon. Gentleman next asked whether forecasts had been made about the level of employment. I believe that it would be right to say that the most serious implications for employment would follow if we made an overoptimistic forecast of demand. Then. with a commitment to build, perhaps, works that would never be used and vast over-capacity, one would run grave risks of unemployment of a high level in areas particularly sensitive. This is one of the reasons why it is right that the forecasts made should be as realistic as we can make them.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about consulting the steel unions. The steel unions were seen in March by my right hon. Friend who was Minister for Industry, and it was arranged that there would be further discussions with them following this statement. I shall be happy for those to take place.
On the final point about a debate on this subject, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Sir R. Cary: In the plan which my hon. Friend has outlined, is the Irlam steelworks, in the Manchester area, a benefactor?

Mr. Boardman: I cannot at the moment give the position about individual works. That must follow the outcome of the further strategic planning which is being carried on. At that stage


the position of individual works will be considered and then announced.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to ask supplementary questions. I propose to call first those who had Questions on this matter on the Order Paper.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the strategic planning must take place as quickly as possible? The uncertainty in North Staffordshire will continue until a decision is taken about whether to invest £4 million in arc furnaces, without which the level of unemployment will rise catastrophically in North Staffordshire.

Mr. Boardman: I accept that the strategic planning should take place as quickly as possible, but it is extremely important that this matter is fully considered and that every effort is made to get it right. As I said in my statement, the very high level of investment in works in the meantime is continuing. The British Steel Corporation has very much in mind the position of individual works.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my hon. Friend indicate the trend in world and European demand and how his plans fit in with it, because expansion without markets will make it difficult to make profits? Will he ask the British Steel Corporation to publish a corporate plan indicating profit forecast, improvement in productivity and return on capital invested?

Mr. Boardman: It is estimated that there will be a general downward trend in world demand. Hon. Members may have seen the article by Dennis Dwyer inThe Timestoday showing the way in which the Japanese are taking a completely fresh look at world demand. I am sure that the Corporation will take note of what my hon. Friend has said about publishing a corporate plan.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his envisaged capacity for steel is restrictive in the extreme and will come as a great disappointment, not only to hon. Members on this side of the House but to everyone connected with the industry? Will he encourage the adoption of a flexible approach by the Corporation to the question of invest-

ment so that it can take advantage of any unexpected upturn in world demand? Will he also encourage the Corporation to promote the potential of deep-water ore terminals on the East Coast at places like Teesside and Humberside, which are admirably situated to receive raw materials and to service future markets?

Mr. Boardman: It is intended that the approach in the strategic planning shall be as flexible as possible to enable changes to be made in the capacity for as long forward as possible if there are changes in demand. But the danger of planning for vast over-capacity could involve very much more serious consequences for areas than a more realistic approach, which the Joint Steering Group has used. The Corporation is considering the question of deep-water terminals.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on producing a thoroughly reasonable and achievable objective for the British Steel Corporation. I hope he will not be led away into the fairyland of over-optimistic forecasting. Since he has shown a reluctance to follow limply behind the Japanese, will he give consideration to the building of mini-mills using natural gas for steel production?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. The question of mini-mills opens up a variety of factors, and they are being carefully evaluated and taken into account in the strategic planning.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a scandalous situation in that he has failed to give any assurance about the future of Shelton steelworks, which needs only £4 million to guarantee its future? Is he further aware that if this steelworks is closed 2,000 jobs will be lost and Stoke-on-Trent will be turned into a distressed area? Would he take note of my warning that there will be massive industrial unrest in North Staffordshire if the region's future is jeopardised in this way?

Mr. Boardman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should treat this as a disappointing statement. A statement setting such a high level of investment, projected forward to 1973–74 and, as will be known from previous announcements, with anticipated expenditure at or above that rate


beyond then, surely shows great confidence in the industry. The question of individual works and the one with which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned will be dealt with in the strategic planning study which is now going on.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not a fact that the more my hon. Friend allows himself to be persuaded by the strident lobbyists on the benches opposite who want massive green field site steelworks, the more difficult it will be to maintain in existence the steelworks which concern the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary)?
I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question about the £200 million capital expenditure sanctioned for 1973–74. To what extent will the pricing policy of the British Steel Corporation allow at least a reasonable amount of that to come from the retained earnings of the Corporation rather than from the Exchequer?

Mr. Boardman: I endorse what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question. On the second part concerning pricing policy, the Corporation has submitted its operating forecasts for the next five years which are now being considered and in which come the estimates of the amount of retained profits which will be available for financing this very high level of capital expenditure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: To what extent is the cut-back in forward planning by 1980 due to discussions which have taken place with the European Coal and Steel Community? Have there, in fact, been discussions? Has an agreement been made? Is there anything which could prevent the Government from doing whatever they may want to do without reference to the ECSC?

Mr. Boardman: There have been no discussions between the Joint Steering Group and the ECSC. The decisions were made in isolation from that body. But the opportunities which will arise from our entry into Europe and which the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, my noble Friend Lord Melchett, spoke about in a debate in the other place in October, are considered to be very

pertinent factors to the question of forecasting and planning.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the production of 28 million to 36 million tons of steel a year about which he spoke should be compared with the production of 120 million to 150 million tons of steel a year by Japan within five years? Can he say whether the Corporation will make a profit in future and what he proposes to do with the piled up losses, now more than £100 million, and to prevent those losses from increasing?

Mr. Boardman: The Corporation plans to make a profit in the future. I am sure that my hon. Friend would expect it to do so, and it intends to do so. My right hon. Friend announced in the House last year that the forecast was that it would come into profit in 1973–74, hut circumstances have since arisen which have put the date back. The present plans visualise the Corporation coming into profit in the mid-1970s.
My hon. Friend will have seen that Japan has cut back on its forecast of demand. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what was said on this point by Dennis Dwyer in his article inThe Timesthis morning. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the danger of over-capacity can be very acute and it would be very acute in areas in this country where we would not wish to inflict its consequences.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I ought to begin by echoing the remarks of my hon. Friend who accused the Secretary of State of hidine behind his hon. Friend's skirts. I think that that is true, and if I were the right hon. Gentleman I should be ashamed of coming forward 18 months late with such a statement as we have heard today. It is an insult to the intelligence of this House, to the intelligence of the steel industry and to the intelligence of the country.
May I put three short questions to the hon. Gentleman who has had the unfortunate job of presenting this non-event of 1972? First, the present capacity of the British Steel Corporation is about 27 million ingot tons. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an expected tonnage by 1980 of 28 million to 36 million tons. Bearing in mind some of the plants which have


come on stream, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that there are to be no capital development schemes of which we do not know already. Those that he has mentioned are the schemes that we have been told about before. Will he confirm that this was a confidence trick worked by his right hon. Friend to prevent the BSC from making decisions before entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Boardman: The only point of the hon. Member's question to which I might perhaps reply is that about capacity. The increase in capacity up to 36 million ingot tons at the top of the bracket of 28 million tons to 36 million tons shows a rate of growth which is three times the rate of growth over the last 10 years.
As for my right hon. Friend allowing me to make the statement instead of making it himself, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce a programme of this massive level of investment.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point about the lack of new capacity, when he studies the statement he will see that the investments referred to are those which were known beforehand. The amount of the investment, which is substantial, will be additional to anything further that may arise as a result of the strategic plan coming out later in the year.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While congratulating my hon. Friend on his supplementary answers, may I ask, first, whether he will ensure that his initial statements are as direct and as clear as his supplementary answers have been?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the profitability of this investment, which is obviously of great importance, will be no less than that of the European Coal and Steel Community?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I hope that we can aim for a level of profitability that will be no less than in any other part of the Community or any other part of the world. Our intention must be to help the Corporation to make this a profitable, viable, good employer industry, because it is an essential part of the nation's economy.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he will be hard put to convince the people of this country that the icy hand of Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market has not descended on his statement? Can he say precisely how many jobs are involved or are likely to be retained in the development areas?

Mr. Boardman: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many jobs will be involved, except to this extent, that if, as has been known to the House for a long time, there are, inevitably, closures of the older plants and redundancy in some areas, it is well known that the Corporation is a good employer in giving notice and in having consultations about redundancy terms. The extent of the redundancy will depend on the final outcome of the strategic plan. The level of investment which has been announced will, I hope, give some confidence that this problem and also what was said about regional policy are very much in the mind of everyone concerned.

Mr. Skeet: While congratulating my hon. Friend on facing economic realism, something which the Opposition have not done, may I ask him to persuade the Corporation to produce the right products at reasonable prices and endeavour to make this a customer-orientated industry, because through that it will be able to gain the most success on going into Europe?

Mr. Boardman: I am sure that the Corporation will try to comply with what my hon. Friend has said. It might be noted in the announcement today that the Corporation has achieved a remarkable contract in Mexico, where it faced international competition. It has landed a technical consultancy for a major operation which, according to the Press, will produce a fee of about £10 million.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been kept waiting not four months but 18 months since the intervention of his right hon. Friend in these matters, and that there is still no greater clarity about the size of the steel industry, even in the 'seventies?
Having admitted that there is this difference between 28 million and 36 million, will the hon. Gentleman say


whether the investment programme which he has announced is related to capacity of 28 million tons in the late 'seventies, or 36 million tons? Is he aware that the difference between 28 million and 36 million is more than 25 per cent., and that we are talking in 1972 about decisions which must become effective in capacity terms before 1980?
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any green field sites, at Hunterston or elsewhere, by the late 'seventies, or whether sticking to this unacceptably wide bracket of 28 million to 36 million is designed to prevent a decision and hold down capacity? We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on postponing an announcement on this until after the Scottish municipal elections.

Mr. Boardman: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to delay, because the House will recall that there was a delay of three years between 1964 and 1967 when the Steel Act was brought in which caused considerable delay and uncertainty and added to the uncertainty which was so disruptive to the industry in the period prior to the vesting date. It is to enable the industry to recover from that and to set it on the right course that the Government have taken a careful, well-balanced appreciation of what is involved.
When the right hon. Gentleman reads the statement he will see that the majority of the points raised by him have been covered. I made it clear that no decision had been made on green field or brown field sites. Nor can a decision be made until we have the result of the strategic studies being carried out by the Corporation. The investments now being made at Ravenscraig and so on are going ahead. There has been no limit on such investments and they will cover a large part of the requirement, but whether they go at the top or the bottom of the bracket will depend on what additional capacity is built, where it may be needed, and to what extent changes are needed in the present production plants.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep concern in South Wales about steel investment? Will he tell the House why he and his predecessor refused to see my colleagues and myself from South Wales before this

statement was made? Will he now tell us the implications of his statement in South Wales and at Port Talbot, Newport and Cardiff, which are so dependent on the steel industry?

Mr. Boardman: I shall be happy to see the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but it was thought that it would be inopportune to see them shortly before the statement was made. I repeat that I shall be happy to see the right hon Gentleman at any time.
The implications for individual plants must be left to the Corporation, and they will be considered by the Government when the Corporation puts forward its plans. They will be considered in the context of regional matters, and so on.

Mr. Rost: Is it not irresponsible for some hon. Members opposite to criticise this realistic assessment of the growth prospect in the industry reached in cooperation with the British Steel Corporation? What possible social or economic advantage can there be in developing vast over-capacity in excess of estimated demand?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who has put the answer rather better than I did.

Mr. Lawson: May we be told whether the £55 million to be spent at Ravenscraig is additional to the present expenditure or is an improvement on the present level of expenditure? Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Corporation that it is vital in Scotland that any old steel-making capacity which is extinguished should be replaced by new steel-making capacity, since it will be a bad day indeed for Scotland if the Corporation sends from the South crude steel to be rolled in Scotland?

Mr. Boardman: The announcement of the £55 million expenditure at Ravenscraig is part of the continuing expenditure which is covered by the figure of £265 million in the current year and the provisional £200 million on account in the following year. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the planning of any new steel complex in a way which will mean steel having to come to Scotland from elsewhere will weigh heavily in any consideration of the matter and will be taken into account in any strategic plan.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer that the plans of the Labour Government were not known until 1967 is quite wrong, since all the details were debated in this House in April, 1965? Is he further aware that we were then basing ourselves on a figure of 40 million t0ons. How can he now expect us to believe that the Government are interested in expansion when he has produced a figure of only 28 million tons? In regard to the social consequences, will the Government take much more interest in this matter than they seem to have done up to the present since we were told that the social consequences at Irlam were being considered, despite the fact that we now know that if closure takes place, there will be 20 per cent. unemployment?

Mr. Boardman: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the original forecast of 40 million tons of demand my answer must be that they did not get it. Had the then Government been right in their forecast, some of the problems we inherited would not have arisen. The social consequences must weigh heavily in the strategic plan. When this is considered regional policies and the like, will weigh heavily with the Government. Today's announcement seeks to assess the demand which is likely to arise in the world with a somewhat depressed steel industry.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to assume from your earlier ruling that only those who have questions on the Order Paper are to be called, to be followed by Members without constituency interests? Why is it that no Teesside Member has been called from such an important steel-producing area?

Mr. Speaker: In such a situation as this, it is difficult for the Chair to satisfy all hon. Members.

Mr. Normanton: May I add my welcome to my hon. Friend's statement. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that in formulating his statement he has enjoyed the full-hearted co-operation of the BSC? Does he not agree that the statement will help to dispel the malicious rumour-mongering which has prevailed in the country for many months?

Mr. Boardman: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I confirm what he has said.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the British Steel Corporation will make final proposals. Will he now admit that Lord Melchett in his own statement delivered to a group of Members of Parliament in a Committee room of this House only two years ago had submitted detailed proposals for the expansion of the industry by 1975 to 35 million tons and by 1981 to 41 million tons? Does he not agree that the Government have now destroyed that plan and superimposed a different policy? Does he further admit that the Joint Steering Group has now severely limited the ability of the Corporation to be master in its own house? Finally, will he also admit that when considering the future of the British steel industry by the 1980s this will not be so much a question of producing a little less or a little more but will mean, in terms of capacity, that expansion below 40 million tons will not allow the BSC to compete with the production of any other major steel-producing country?

Mr. Boardman: I am aware that the noble Lord and his colleagues at one state throught that the demand would be at a higher level than they now accept. However, I repeat that the bracket which is now being put forward, in the range of 28 to 36 million tons, is one in which the Corporation fullly participates and which it accepts. I went on to say that there is no question of imposing on the Corporation any particular figure, and those who know the noble Lord will know that to impose on the noble Lord a figure such as was suggested would not be the easiest of tasks. It was a figure which was freely accepted. I went on to say that the Corporation veered towards the higher end of the bracket. The Corporation was a major participant in the Joint Steering Group, it accepted the situation, and there is no question of any imposition of these figures.

Mr. Tinn: Is the hon. Gentleman faintly conscious—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.")—I doubt it—of the shocking disappointment that will be felt by the 6,000 steel workers on Teesside who are now unemployed, when one bears in mind that


the steel unions have co-operated with the Corporation in the modernisation of the industry? Is not a decision to settle once for all the question of the development of Redcar and the new steel complex there absolutely essential to this country if we are to preserve our position in the European steel world, particularly bearing in mind the promised merger between German and Dutch interests which migh pre-empt the interests of British steel?

Mr. Boardman: It would be wrong for me to comment on individual plants, but I feel that the disappointment is completely misplaced. The concern would be very much greater if a target had been accepted well above the figures which are realistic, with the consequences of possible over-capacity which could be used only at the expense of the closing down of some very fine plants with the result of putting out of work many thousands of people who now look forward to continued employment in the present modern plant.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Harry George Lamborn, esquire, for Southwark.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 The escape on Friday last, evidently to the sanctuary of the Irish Republic, of a convicted IRA terrorist serving a 10-year sentence from Her Majesty's Prison, Crumlin Road, Belfast, and the resulting breakdown of confidence in the security forces.
This matter is specific. One Michael Willis, an IRA terrorist, was charged 12 months ago with a very serious firearms offence. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years. On Friday last, by methods not yet known, he escaped from the Crumlin Road prison, and a statement has been issued from the IRA authorities to say that he is now safely in the sanctuary of the Irish Republic.
This matter is important because it is one of a series of serious gaol-breaks from

Her Majesty's prison in Crumlin Road. It is the first gaol-break since this House voted to take over the Government of Northern Ireland. The Government announced that they were anxious to have law and order in their own hands, and now that they have taken law and order into their hands, we discover that there is this serious gaol-break.
This break must be put in the context of the present Northern Ireland situation. The Government have declared that it is their intention to de-escalate internment. The House knows that I have advocated since becoming a Member of this House that the ordinary processes of the law should be used against terrorists, that they should be brought before the courts, that they should be tried and, if guilty, sentenced. Now we have discovered that one of the men who has been brought before the courts and has been tried and duly sentenced has been able to escape. Therefore I say it is a matter of great importance.

I also urge that it is a matter of urgency because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member considerable latitude. He really is not entitled to make the kind of speech he would make if the application were granted. He is entitled to raise the topic. I have allowed him to go rather further than that, but he must not enter into the merits.

Rev. Paisley: Finally, could I say that it is impossible for this matter to be discussed in this House by question and answer until after the Whitsun Recess? As a Northern Ireland representative, I believe that I and others in the House should have an opportunity in some way of raising matters of urgent public importance. I appreciate the latitude that you have extended to me, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will appreciate the position in which I find myself.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was courteous enough to give me notice that he intended to make this application. I do not have to give any ruling upon the importance of the matter, nor, indeed, upon the ways in which these matters can be ventilated in this House. I simply have to decide whether I consider that the business of the House already announced should be disrupted for an


emergency debate on this topic. I am afraid that I cannot grant this application.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way raising, let alone questioning, the grounds on which you arrived at the decision which you have just announced, may I put it to you that if it were the case that Private Notice Questions or Standing Order No. 9 Motions which would be acceptable when they related to one part of the country become unacceptable when they related to another part because of a frequency or intensity of emergencies in that other part of the country, this would be a very serious matter? I should like to ask you whether you would consider it right to move the proper bodies to consider problems of this nature with which we are presented by the present circumstance in Northern Ireland and the new responsibilities of this House with regard to it.

Captain Orr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We realise the difficulties in which this situation has placed the Chair. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has pointed out, there are incidents which are an almost daily occurrence in Northern Ireland which if they happened in Great Britain would be the subject of Private Notice Questions, ministerial statements and the like. Prior to the prorogation of Stormont, they

would almost certainly have qualified for Private Notice Question status there, too. Now the electorate of Northern Ireland is totally frustrated in that it cannot put such questions.
I would respectfully suggest that you might consider some kind of middle way, perhaps by putting this to the appropriate Select Committee so that it could discuss how the business of the House could be protected, avoiding continuous discussion on Northern Ireland while permitting Private Notice Questions of a kind which raise new issues of considerable substance or particular gravity. This matter places those who represent Northern Ireland in extraordinary difficulties. May I suggest that you might approach the Leader of the House with a view to seeing whether the difficulty could be avoided by weekly statements, progress reports, on the state of the rebellion in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: I make no complaint at all about the manner in which the right hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member have put their points of order. I think that they are on a very valid point to which I have already referred in the House. The House is in a difficulty. certainly the Chair is, and it has been fairly stated I have been aware of the problem for some time and all I can say is—but perhaps I had better not say any more now—I will certainly bear in mind what has been said.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING FINANCE BILL [THIRD ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

4.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman come here often?

Mr. Walker: I presumed that hon. Members opposite, by the time they had carefully considered this Bill in Committee and on Report, would almost certainly cheer when the Government spokesman stood up to move the Third Reading. I am pleased to see that after a careful consideration they now see many of its merits.
The period between Second and Third Reading has been one during which both sides of the Committee and the House have given a great deal of detailed consideration to the complicated Clauses. The House is grateful for the careful and diligent consideration that has been given. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, supported for the main part of the Committee stage by the then Under-Secretary, now the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, steered through this important and complicated piece of legislation. With some of the major provisions affecting slum clearance and housing associations, the Committee and Report stage have been used further to improve the legislation involved in assisting these important functions.
It is interesting to recognise that it was almost exactly seven years ago that the then Government of the day considered it important to have a fundamental re-examination of housing finance. It was the then Minister of Housing and Local Government who said that this was an urgent and important matter for the Government to consider and that the Government would later be coming forward with further proposals. The review continued—one cannot say "apace "throughout all of the years of the Labour

Government. From time to time, in 1966, 1968, 1969 and as late as January, 1970, pronouncements were made by various Ministers of the then Government to the effect that the review was "reaching its climax ", the review was" soon to be announced ", the review was "going apace ". Yet no announcements were made.
We shall never know what that review contained. The Labour Party decided at the last General Election not in any way to include in its election manifesto any concepts that might have come out of that review.
It is interesting to reflect that the Labour Party, having agreed the necessity for a review, went into the last Election without any policy on housing finance. One can hardly take the view, in view of what was happening in housing, that, after reviewing the subject, the Labour Party was content with what it saw. By 1970 a number of major and socially important spheres of housing were in great difficulty, including the slum clearance programme. An increasing number of authorities were finding, as they went ahead with important housing schemes, that there was either a heavier burden on existing tenants or on the ratepayers or on both.
Housing associations were facing great difficulties—other than in a number of cases where they had been given considerable help by local authorities. But nation-wide housing associations were facing great difficulties. Nobody could have denied the necessity for a review.
On coming into office this Government duly reviewed the whole basis of housing finance and came forward first with their White Paper proposals and then with the Bill. The basis of this Government's review was to see where the money injected into housing was most needed to improve housing conditions and to try to decide methods by which a fair rent could be charged for public and private housing alike.
There was an unfortunate difference between the public and private housing sectors, in that a situation was being created in the private sector where many poorer families were living in declining housing conditions because of the inability of their landlords to keep the houses in a tolerable state of repair.


There was no point of difference between the parties on this issue. The Milner Holland Report clearly indicated it. The last Government, in their 1965 Act and their later legislation, recognised the need for revisions in this sphere.
This Government, on reviewing the best method to apply the finance allocated to housing, had to look at various alternative proposals. Three major proposals were put before Ministers when we first took office. Whether those three proposals were put before Labour Ministers only they can say. So far they will not say.
As to the proposals that we examined, there were three possibilities. One was based on historic cost, whereby the historic cost of all local authority housing was pooled and a resulting pool rent charged. The second alternative was the owner-occupier equivalent, whereby an effort was made to up-date housing to its current market values and to put it on a basis of purchasing the house, eliminating the capital repayment factor. However, this was a method that would have resulted in a very substantial increase in rents, resulting in rents way beyond the fair rent levels.
The third possibility was to apply the fair rent principle which the previous Government had applied to sections of the private sector in 1965 and extended still further in their later legislation. Before deciding to adopt the fair rent principle, the Conservative Government carefully examined both the manner in which it had been applied and the effects it had had on landlord and tenant alike. One of the adverse effects of the previous fair rent system in the private sector had been that the last Government had brought in fair rents for quite a large section of the private sector but had provided with them no form of rent allowances for tenants. There could have been cases where, due to inability to pay the rent, security of tenure was in some danger as a result of the non-availability of rent allowances.
The pooled historic cost idea, doubtless modified in various ways, is the one which seemingly appeals to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), judging by the words he wrote in his Fabian leaflet on this topic. In this leaflet, with all the convenience that Oppositions have in these matters, the

right hon. Gentleman concluded that this was no time for the Opposition to come to conclusions; therefore, he felt that this should be left to a later stage for the Opposition to consider further. Therefore, the Labour Party's review, which started in 1965, continues apace; and the House and the country will he interested to know that, in spite of all the debates and discussions, seemingly no conclusion has been reached
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the application of pooled historic cost is very unfair between one authority and another and can result in some exceedingly high rents. It would result, in certain places, in rents far higher than the fair rent level. There are many disadvantages to this system.
It was for this reason that, after examining the systems available to secure a tolerable and sensible level of rents, the Government decided to apply the fair rent levels. I believe, having studied the words spoken in Committee and on Report, that no member of the Committee has suggested a better alternative to this method for basing rents on.

Mr. Arthur Latham: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his studying what went on in Committee and on Report. He will know that some critical questions were asked of the Minister for Housing and Construction at the end of our debates on Report about the interpretation of Clause 50. Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he just said that it is expected that fair rents will mean that rents in the public sector will be the same as those in the private sector for comparable properties? Will he confirm that—because it is vital?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees that he has an obligation to explain to the House. before the debate goes much further, whether the criteria that the Birmingham Conservative-controlled council, as it then was, applied are in accordance with Clause 50 are contrary to it?

Mr. Walker: Certainly. A number of authorities of differing political persuasions have come out with their estimates of what fair rents will be. It is not for me to make a judgment, as each authority announces its estimates, about whether the estimates are accurate. [HON.


MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Therefore, when Birmingham's suggestions come for examination, if Birmingham asks for a direction about rent increases, we shall carefully make an assessment of the situation. I am certainly in no position to do so at present.
Under the fair rents system, rents in various areas will in the coming months be definitely fixed. At this stage we shall see how very wrong and unreasonable the Opposition's propaganda campaign on the Bill has been. I believe that in cities like Birmingham, Bristol and Newcastle tenants who have been told by Labour Party organisers and campaigners that this Bill will bring about a doubling of rents will find that that does not happen.
No doubt hon. Members on both sides read the article in yesterday's Observerby Alan Day which implied clearly that on his studies the general allegation that rents will double will prove to be wrong.
The Opposition will doubtless claim that last week's local election results were closely connected with the hostility that exists to this legislation. I believe that a little more detailed examination will prove that not to be the case. However, even if it were the case, from the point of view of party politics, the Opposition are at this moment in history at their most favourable point. They have made the point nation-wide very effectively that all council house rents will double. That was the great message that they tried to get across to the country. They did so effectively. I congratulate them on having done it.
From now onwards people will see what the fair rents system means to them; and, much more important, they will see what both the rebate system and the rent allowance system mean to them. When they see how the Bill really works when enacted, hundreds of tousands of tenants will recognise the immense benefit this legislation will bring to them.

Mr. Frank Allaun: We have quoted—we make no excuse for it —the estimate contained in the Department's own statement that rents will on average nearly double in each of the ten regions. The Minister now suggests for certain towns figures that are lower. I

will not go into the Birmingham matter, because I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr Crosland) will deal with that.
Will the Secretary of State now answer the question he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham)? Does the basis still exist that council rents will be put on the same level as equivalent houses in the private sector? If they are, it is nonsense for the Minister to say that rents will not be doubled, because they will more than double.

Mr. Walker: The definition of fair rents is used in legislation introduced by the Labour Party. It is quite clear. The considerations taken into account are also quite clear. Therefore, I am willing to be judged, as no doubt the Government will be, on the actual impact and effect of this legislation on council house estates.

Mr. Allaun: Answer the question.

Mr. Walker: It is interesting to see the difference at this stage between those local authorities which have decided to delay implementing the basic provisions of this Bill for as long as statutorily possible, and those local authorities which have not so decided. One can understand them taking that political view, but the surprising thing is to see those authorities which decided to bring about an increase of 50p in their rents on 1st April at the same time as they introduced the rebate scheme outlined in this legislation.
Talking of Birmingham, I should like to give two examples from a case affecting Birmingham people. In my constituency I have an overspill from Birmingham on council estates in Droitwich, built over the last two or three years and housing mainly families who moved out because of bad housing conditions in Birmingham. They are now living on two sizeable estates in Droitwich. It is interesting to note the effect of the application of this Bill in terms of its rebate schemes and rent allowances on a large number of people in those estates already. Although the scheme was circulated only a few months ago, already a high proportion will obtain rebates.
I know that hon. Members opposite have tried to hide from the public the


effect of the rebates and rent allowances, but let me give an example of a family in a council house on one of these estates, paying currently a rent of £5·32 a week. The income of the family, consisting of husband, wife and two children, is £26 a week. As a result of our rebate scheme their rent is going down from £5·32 to £3·10 a week. It is not possible to convince that family that this is not a socially reforming Measure. That is the Boycott Estate consisting of Birmingham overspill.
Let us take one of the older council houses in that area where once again the income of a family—husband, wife and two children—is £26 and the current rent is £3·12. This is a pre-war council house. Under this rebate scheme the rent is reduced by nearly £1 to £2·22.
Rents for the new estates of Birmingham overspill, like so many new estates in this country, are probably at levels approaching what a fair rent level should be. All over the country—[Interruption.] —and I do not blame the Labour Party for having their last shout about this—council house tenants will soon be seeing the benefit that this rebate scheme brings.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South-West) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way, so the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Walker: Under the previous Government a circular went out urging all local authorities to use their subsidies in order to provide proper rebate schemes. As a result of this legislation I am pleased to say that many have already done so, and I am sure that the tenants of the various estates are pleased, too. People living in 40 per cent. of local authority areas will for the first time be eligible for a rent rebate. There will be the whole of the private sector, and I noticed that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) said that he felt that it was a mistake of the last Government, in six years of office, to have done nothing about allowances in the private sector. Not only did they do nothing about allowances in the private sector, but there was no sign of them so doing. It is the present Government who have acted to bring this benefit to that sector of the community.

Mr. Dick Leonard: The right hon. Gentleman has accurately quoted. what I said the other day. The Labour Government did not seek to impose a compulsory £1 increase. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, rents are not going up all that much, and Birmingham is fairly typical, why is there a compulsory £1 increase?

Mr. Walker: When the hon. Gentleman spoke the other day he was talking about rent allowances in the private sector. The Labour Government introduced legislation which imposed increases in those rents. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was constantly telling us what enormous increases in rents his Government's legislation was imposing and there were no allowances available at all.
There is also the slum clearance programme. There were many local authorities, of all political persuasions, wanting to go ahead with slum clearance programmes; and they found that in the majority of cases to proceed under the former financial arrangements meant either a financial burden on the ratepayers or an increase in rents for existing tenants, or both. As a result of this, the slum clearance programme in this country did not have the acceleration in development which it so badly needed.
We have brought in legislation introducing grants for 75 per cent. of the loss involved in slum clearance development This will be retrospective to 1971–72, so there is no excuse for local authorities not to proceed immediately. They do not have to wait to take the benefit of this grant. Also it will be back-dated in respect of land held for six years prior to 1st April 1971, which will he a definite and substantial help to some of the worst authorities.
These payments will result in a massive financial benefit to the local authorities concerned. The payments by the Government are made on an annuity basis, which is the traditional form in local government finance, and therefore by 1975–76 about £20 million will be paid in this way, which is equivalent to giving a 75 per cent. subsidy on a total of about £40 million worth of slum clearance programme loss. It is, in fact, a massive injection of capital into the slum clearance campaign. In our talks with the


local authority associations and others, all have agreed that this is a substantial housing reform which will take away the financial disincentive which has existed hitherto in regard to slum clearance.
For example, Liverpool, one of the major authorities, estimates that by 1976–77 it will be benefiting annually from this form of subsidy to the extent of £930,000, equivalent to a 3½p rate.
This subsidy is open-ended in the sense that the more slum clearance is done, and the more speedily it is done, the more money will be paid out as a result. Rents will not be affected. Rates will not be adversely affected. There is, therefore, an important task to be performed both by my Department and by local authorities as a whole to examine slum clearance programmes and to try to accelerate them at the fastest possible rate. Certainly, from the Government's point of view, the more we pay out under this new form of slum clearance subsidy, the better we shall be pleased.
As with all legislation, the implications of the Bill in terms of its application to individuals and to local authorities are an important aspect of the matter. In their Housing Act, 1969, the last Government brought in house improvement grants, but they did not do enough to implement that measure and bring it to the attention of the people concerned. By giving far more publicity to it and directing greater attention to the scheme throughout the country, we have brought about the massive increase—a doubling—of modernisation which is now taking place.
I hope that all local authorities, whatever their political persuasion, will make a considerable effort to see that the availability of rent rebates and rent allowances is brought to the attention of every individual concerned. The difference be-between a bad effort and a good effort here will be considerable in its effect. There is no excuse for any council tenant not to be aware how to obtain a rebate, and my Department will be only too pleased to assist. I hope that tenants in the private sector will likewise have the new rent allowances brought to their attention.
A number of authorities already, within only a short time of trying to implement the rent rebate scheme under the Bill, are

finding that, with a good scheme, about 40 per cent. of their tenants are benefiting from rebates. There is no reason why, with proper energy and activity by local authorities, this process should not be continued.
I turn to the important provisions of the Bill relating to the voluntary housing movement. The housing associations and societies have an important role as a third force in the development of our future housing policy in this country. Throughout the passage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction had numerous meetings with the housing associations, the housing societies and the Housing Corporation to try to see that, when it reached the Statute Book, the Bill would give a great momentum to the housing association movement. I believe that he has achieved that objective with the Amendments and changes which have been made from the original draft of the Bill.
In future, the housing associations will be free to obtain loans from the Housing Corporation and/or from the local authorities. They will be free to obtain their subsidies direct from the Government. They will come under the fair rent scheme and, with it, the provisions for rent allowances to their tenants. This will mean, for example, that many of our older housing associations will be able to create surpluses which will enable them to go in for further extension of their activities.
We have agreed to make changes as regards meeting the deficit resulting from fair rents being below the actual cost rent of much of this accommodation. The agreement to pay 100 per cent. of the deficit for the first three years and 90 per cent. for a further seven years after that will result in a considerable improvement in their situation. I have here several expressions of view to that effect. One comes from the Help the Aged organisation:
 We do, of course, warmly welcome this news "—
that is, the proposal, at an earlier stage of the Bill, to meet the deficit to the extent of 100 per cent. and 90 per cent.—
 May I ask that you will kindly do all you can to see that this is done. It will mean that our sheltered housing work for needy aged people in the United Kingdom can go forward speedily.


Likewise, the National Federation of Housing Societies said, after hearing the news:
 We are delighted to inform you of very substantial concessions which have been granted to the voluntary housing movement in response to the many meetings the Federation has had with the Department of the Environment".

Mr. Latham: What about Shelter?

Mr. Walker: Shelter said:
 I welcome this unreservedly. The Minister, Mr. Amery, has acted most responsibly in accepting the validity of arguments which we have been putting to him since last September 
The associations concerned can now take valuable action. There is need to examine further, however, the basic organisation and legal framework of the housing associations. Some very fine work has been done by well-organised and established housing associations. On the other hand, damage could be done by a badly organised housing association which, perhaps, collapsed after a few years. As the House knows, the Cohen Committee looked into this matter. I believe that there is need to bring in legislation dealing more with administration and organisation, but the financial framework needed to give a great impetus to the movement is now made available by the Bill.
In two of the socially important spheres of housing, therefore, slum clearance and the work of the voluntary housing movement, considerable benefit will flow from the Bill. Many council tenants—far more than think so at present, will benefit considerably from the rebate scheme.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Speaking of the rebate scheme, the Minister said a few minutes ago that 40 per cent. of council tenants would have a rebate. Is that not a bit complacent? If he took the rent increases higher, he could even establish 100 per cent. rebate take-up.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will find that large numbers of people will be paying far lower rents as a result of the Bill than they have been paying for many years past, and his political party, which has spent the last few months trying to give the strong impression that the opposite was true, will find that that will be so.

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. George Cunningham rose—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—

Mr. Walker: I am sorry; I must get on. The rents of those tenants who do not have benefit from the rebate scheme will be limited to a fair rent as defined by the original legislation, which will be a rent certainly not in any way tough or difficult for them to meet. [Interruption.] If it is, they will benefit from the rebate scheme. But the third option open to them, which, I hope, will continue to be extended, is the option for every council house tenant to have the right to buy his own council house.
In the near future, we shall send a circular to local authorities urging them to arrange for that. I have been pleased to note the news that a number of newly elected Socialist authorities are, seemingly, intending to continue the sale of council houses. I hope that the official Opposition policy will change on this matter, though for party political reasons I would hope that it would not change. since I believe that it will be very unpopular for them to stick to their present position.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have searched carefully through the Bill, and I can find no reference to the sale of council houses in it. This is the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Passing references to certain matters are allowed.

Mr. Walker: I can well understand that these passing references sound particularly unhappy to the Opposition's ears.
To sum up, although we inherited a situation that in June, 1970, the slum clearance programme was in decline, this Bill will accelerate slum clearance. The voluntary housing movement was then facing considerable potential decline, and it will now gain immense benefit from the Bill. In the private sector we had the situation where 1,400,000 houses were put under fair rents by the last Government with no form of rent allowance, and now these people will benefit from the rent allowance. In the public sector 40 per cent. of local authorities failed then to provide a rent


rebate scheme, and this scheme will now be available to all. The Government have already doubled the rate of houses improved. The last monthly figures for owner-occupied houses were up by 79 per cent. We shall now accelerate the work of slum clearance and housing associations. All this will result in this country being better housed than ever before.
If we are successful, as I believe we shall be, in providing a rebate scheme or a rent allowance scheme for furnished tenancies, we shall have reached the situation in this country in which no family can claim that it cannot afford to be decently housed. Every family will have the necessary financial support to see that it is. It is for these reasons that I believe the Bill commends itself to the House.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: We naturally welcome the Secretary of State back to our housing finance debates after a fairly long rest period in the Government's base camp. It is true that his return has hardly illuminated our debate and he filled me with an emotion I never thought I would feel, the emotion of: "Come back Julian, all is forgiven ".
The Secretary of State's morale was no doubt affected by the shattering events of last Thursday when the voters gave their verdict on the Government's record and on the Bill. Certainly, the Secretary of State and the Minister between them have lost all their friends in local government, save for a tiny number preserved by the aldermanic system. In the case of the Secretary of State I noted with interest that even in Worcester the Tories have lost control of the council and in Droitwich, in his constituency, the only place in Britain where he is recorded as having met a deputation of tenants, Labour won three out of the four seats.

Mr. Peter Walker: Has the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) noted that of the four elected candidates the highest poll was for the Tory chairman of the housing committee and the one defeated Labour candidate was the gentleman who led the tenants deputation.

Mr. Crosland: If we are exchanging our detailed knowledge would the Secre-

tary of State deny the fact about which I am informed most accurately that this is the first time ever that Labour councillors have been elected in Droitwich?
The main question I have about the Bill is whether it is the same Bill as the one to which we gave a Second Reading on 15th November. I ask because there were some curious exchanges last week between Sir Francis Griffin, the Minister, and the House of Commons which have cast considerable doubts on what is in the Bill and what is not.
I want to concentrate on this vital question. The cornerstone of the Bill is the mandatory rise in rents of £26 per dwelling per annum in 1972–73 and in 1973–74, to be achieved in 1972–73 by a 50p increase in April or £1 increase in October. The mandatory rise of £26 per dwelling is fundamental to the Bill. It is the first essential step in the progression to fair rents. It is basic to the arithmetic of the Bill. In particular it determined the residual subsidy in Clause 2 and the withdrawal factor of £20 per annum which we discussed on Clause 2. It was assumed by the Government that this mandatory rise or perhaps the second year's mandatory rise might, in a few cases, produce rents above the level of fair rents and therefore there was provision for a refund in Clause 68.
But it was not envisaged that this would occur on a scale which would distort the basic arithmetic of the Bill. The provision for the refund took precisely two lines in a White Paper of 38 pages and it was assumed that this would be a trivial exception which underlined the basic rule. The basic rule was the mandatory increase of rents in 1972-73 by £26 per dwelling. That was what the White Paper said. That was what the Bill said. That was what the Minister said in introducing the Bill. That was how the Bill was universally interpreted. That was the explicit assumption underlying all our early debates in Committee. That was what the Minister repeated in Committee on 2nd December when he said, and it is very relevant to what I am going to discuss:
the range of estimates for the new subsidies assumes average unrebated rent income—
he meant rent increase—
 of £26 per dwelling for 1972–73, declining to E14 per dwellng for 1975–76. The decline is


based on the assumption that the rents of an increasing number of dwellings will be at the fair rent level after 1972–73, and therefore before 1975–76."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 2nd December, 1971; c. 113.]
In other words, we have the reaffirmation of the commitment to the £26 mandatory, across-the-board increase. We had a clear statement that in the Government's view fair rents would be reached generally somewhere between 1972–73 and 1975–76—certainly not in 1972–73. It was this which again led the Minister in Committee on 7th December, when we moved Amendment No. 5 designed to slow down the phasing out of subsidies, an Amendment originally suggested by the Association of Municipal Corporations and which the Minister strongly resisted, to say:
 The main purpose of the Amendment clearly is to put off rent increases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT.Standing Committee E, 7th December. 1971, c. 230.]
He rejected that because he made clear that the withdrawal factor of the residual subsidy was directly related to the mandatory rent increase, that he was not prepared to modify the subsidy arangements, and so he was not prepared to tamper with the mandatory increase of £26 per dwelling. He was completely adamant and he adhered rigidly to the 50p increase in April or the £1 increase in October. The arithmetic of the Bill was not to be distorted. That was in December.
We come to February when the Minister began to have second thoughts. He had a letter from his friend Alderman Grey, now one of his few surviving friends preserved by the aldermanic system in Newcastle. The letter said that rents in Newcastle were already near fair rents so that if the £26 mandatory increase was to be imposed a large number of rents would break through the fair rents ceiling.
So at very short notice, acting with that swift determination which we associate with him, the Minister tabled Government Amendment No. 425 to Clause 63 on 22nd February, which we termed the "Newcastle Amendment ". It said that if 10 per cent. or more of dwellings in a housing authority area would be brought above the level of fair rents by a mandatory increase, then the increase could be such lower amount than £26 as the Secretary of State would specify. The Minister, again acting with characteristic swiftness, then had third thoughts on 22nd February. During the day he tabled

Amendment 425. After midnight he tabled an Amendment to his Amendment, reducing the figure of 10 per cent. to 2 per cent.—lightning decision-making, if I may say so. So, on 22nd February the wall was initially breached. We no longer had a mandatory increase of £26 or £1 in October. There could be a lesser figure at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
This, I may say in passing, is an odd story. Apparently the Minister only discovers when he corresponds with his friend Alderman Grey what the position in Newcastle might be. This suggests that either the Department did not know the existing rent levels in Newcastle and elsewhere, which is inconceivable, or that it did not know what it meant the fair rent to be, or that as a result of intense pressure from the Opposition and tenants the Government had revised downwards their notion of what they intended the fair rent to be.

Mr. Frank Allaun: How does anyone know whether these estimates have any meaning at all? The decision will be taken by the rent scrutiny board, which has not even been set up. I therefore ask the Minister through my right hon. Friend if the dramatic climb-down was just a piece of "kiddology "?

Mr. Crosland: My speech was designed to lead up to that very question. With his almost miraculous second sight and intuition, my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to an important point raised by the Newcastle Amendment, as we came to call it, and the Newcastle figures.
At any rate the 2 per cent. Amendment, as it came to be known, was a definite concession and we no longer had a mandatory increase of £26. But it was only a limited breach in the wall. Over the weekend I re-read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee. It is clear that the Minister was still assuming that for most authorities an increase of 50p in April or £1 in October would not bring many rents beyond the level of fair rents, and in the minority of cases when it did he was, clearly, not thinking of any large derogation from the mandatory increase. The Minister, reasonably we thought, quoted examples of a mandatory increase of £1 which might be reduced to 80p under the concession in the Amendment which he moved.
That was February. We now come on to May, and last week when events took a definitely sensational turn. The Minister received another letter—the right hon. Gentleman is a great correspondent—this time from another friend of his, Sir Francis Griffin, who, unfortunately is no longer with us in office. He has been succeeded.
The letter from Sir Francis said, in effect, "Birmingham has found that a considerable percentage of its housing would, if the mandatory increase were applied, be above the fair rent level. Birmingham wishes to take advantage of your Amendment "—of what is now Clause 63(6)—" and Birmingham is therefore applying to the Minister to allow it to put up rents in October not by the statutory £1 but by an average of 35p which, in the view of Birmingham, will bring rents on average up to the fair rent levels." Birmingham was therefore still speaking of considerable rents—existing rents plus 35p—but less considerable than would have occurred with existing rents plus £1.
It is odd, in passing, that this application from Sir Francis Griffin—which, after all, did not have to be made for months ahead; not until shortly before 1st October—was made three days before the municipal elections. I naturally do not and never would suspect any hanky-panky between the Minister and his old Birmingham friend. In any event, if there were any hanky-panky it did not pay off because I am glad to say that Birmingham has finally put the memory of Chamberlain behind it and has resumed its rightful place as one of the leading Labour-controlled authorities.
Not only was the timing of the letter from Sir Francis odd, but the response of the Minister—at any rate to anyone who still took the Bill and the Minister seriously—was even odder because the Minister did not say "Look, old friend, do not be ridiculous. The Bill lays down an increase of £26 per dwelling, with a rent increase of £1 in October if rents were not increased in April, so you cannot have an increase of only 35p. That would be only one-third of the rent increase I need ". Instead of saying that, the right hon. Gentleman treated the Birmingham figures asbona fidefigures. He threw a cloak of respectability over

them and indeed absorbed them into his armoury of arguments against the Opposition about what the level of fair rents was likely to be.
The right hon. Gentleman formally reserved his position, as he had to do, under the Amendment. Perhaps I should say that the Under-Secretary was kind enough to reserve it for him because the right hon. Gentleman forgot to do so. Nevertheless, the Minister tacitly assumed throughout the debate that the figures were reasonable. And the Under-Secretary said that the Birmingham figures were "not astonishing at all ".
It is clear that, unless the Minister—I do not believe this for a moment—was trying to deceive the House, we must take it that the Birmingham figures are broadly acceptable, subject to the final discretion of the Government. I do not believe that the Minister could now, or even would, as a matter of his own integrity, tell the House, or write to Birmingham in three months' time saying, "I am terribly sorry but I misled Birmingham and the House. The figures are quite unacceptable ". We therefore take it that the figures are broadly acceptable.
We have then reached an extraordinary position, and I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite yet fully recognise this. The second largest housing authority in the country, the largest outside the GLC, claims, and the Minister does not contradict, that to achieve the so-called fair rent needs not an increase of 50p in April, nor of £1 in October, but only of 35p in October.
This sort of thing was certainly not envisaged last July when we debated the White Paper. Nor was it envisaged when we had the Second Reading of the Bill on 15th November. If it had been envisaged we can be certain that the Minister would have made a great deal of it in those early debates. At that time the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were talking, as the Bill and the White Paper had talked, exclusively of a mandatory, across-the-board £26 increase per dwelling, with only the odd subsequent refund if the increase proved excessive.
Remember, we are discussing not only Birmingham. The Minister quoted Newcastle, Portsmouth and other smaller authorities as being likely to have, on


their figures—we do not know the basis of their figures, of course—an increase during the year of well under £26 per dwelling.
What about the GLC? Its rents are surely, if anything, nearer the so-called fair rents than are Birmingham rents. Thus, if Birmingham is to have this sort of increase, we can be sure that the GLC will have a far smaller increase than £26, and the same will be true of many London boroughs which are now, or have been in recent years, under Tory control.
In my view this is to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. The mandatory increase of 50p or £1, at any rate of £26 in the year, with provision for only a few refunds after the event, will now not apply to Birmingham, Newcastle and elsewhere. If they do not apply to Birmingham they will not apply to the GLC and half the London boroughs. They will not apply to a considerable number of additional authorities. And the derogation from the mandatory £26 is not minor or marginal, but a derogation in respect of Birmingham from £1 to 35p, a derogation by two-thirds.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): It would be for the convenience of the whole House, which otherwise might be sitting here until 11 o'clock, if, in view of the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman now puts on what was always clear —our Bill—he said that he does not intend to divide the House tonight.

Mr. Crosland: I withdraw my previous remark of, "Julian, come back. All is forgiven." I at least concede to the Minister that we on this side find extremely welcome the hole through which the coach and horses can go. But it certainly bears no relation to what was in the White Paper, the Bill as drafted, or ministerial speeches. Unless the Minister is deceiving the House, it represents a major shift of policy, which makes nonsense of much of the rest of the Bill, such as the subsidy changes. Under Clause I all existing subsidies are to be swept away, and during the transition period to be replaced by the residual subsidy described in Clause 2. The residual subsidy reduces by an amount which is related each year to the so-called withdrawal factor.
In 1972–73, as the Minister well knows by now—I was not sure that he did when

we discussed Clause 2 in December, but I am sure he is well informed on these matters now—the withdrawal factor is £20 per dwelling. But this £20 is related in a direct way, although, it is true, a complicated way, to the £26 mandatory rent increase. If we are not to have the £26 increase, which I am delighted to discover, what happens to the residual subsidy and the withdrawal factor? The Minister will get into trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The £26 per dwelling mandatory increase would have brought the Chancellor in about £104 million a year, money which, at any rate so he said, he badly needed to take the strain off the Exchequer, but he will now find that he will not get £104 million a year; he will not get £26 a dwelling. Certainly in the authorities I quoted he will get very much less than that.
Therefore, the Chancellor's arithmetic has now become all nonsense. On the Birmingham analogy, the Minister must have made some estimates about the rest of the country. What figure of average increase in rents this year does he expect? It will obviously not now, thank goodness, be £26 a year. It will be substantially lower. What figure is now in his mind? What figure is in his mind for the total increase in rent income during the year, which will obviously not be £104 million but substantially less? And what will happen to the subsidies for Birmingham? On 7th December the Minister said that Birmingham would receive this year a subsidy totalling £7 million, roughly the same as it had last year under the odd system. But that was based on the assumption of a rent increase of £26 a house. Now that is not occurring, and is reduced to one third of that amount. It would be interesting to know what Birmingham's subsidy entitlement will turn out to be.
There is one other curious thing about the Birmingham incident that I mention only in passing, because my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) will deal with it in more detail in winding up. Some of my hon. Friends referred to it last Thursday. I am speaking of the fact that the Birmingham figures are based on a report of the Director of Housing which used as the criteria for fair rents factors which were specifically excluded by Clause 50 and the interpretation placed on that Clause


by the Minister in Committee—the level of earnings in the area, the number of people who would be eligible for rebates and so on. I will not go through them, because my hon. Friend will.
This raises a question which I must put to the Minister, which is that, despite the illegitimate basis of the figures, he quoted them with uncritical approval in the debate last Thursday. Either he knew that the basis of their calculation was illegitimate under Clause 50, in which case he was, which I do not believe he was trying to do, deceiving the House and tearing up Clause 50 of his own Bill without saying so openly, or, more likely, he had no earthly idea how the figures were calculated, no idea of whether they were calculated consistently with the Bill or not, in which case he was guilty of gross carelessness and irresponsibly using these figures against the Opposition, giving them an unmerited cloak of official approval.
Anyway, the fact is that, whether it was merited or not, he gave those figures a cloak of respectability, and the Under-Secretary found them not astonishing. So what is the position now? Birmingham has bust the barrier of the mandatory £26 a dwelling increase, and by a very large amount. Newcastle, Plymouth and other places quoted by the Minister will also have increases approved which are far lower than £26 a dwelling. The GLC and perhaps half the London boroughs will find themselves in the same position as Birmingham. Already, simply with those authorities, we have 15 per cent. of all the council dwellings in the country. That means that 15 per cent. are virtually outside the Bill already. On top of that, every Labour-controlled authority—there need be no argument about tactics now—will follow the example hallowed by the Minister and Sir Francis Griffin and make their application under Clause 63(6).
Even if rents over much of the rest of the country are now somewhat lower than Birmingham's, it is very unlikely that on the Birmingham analogy most authorities will not receive some decrease from the mandatory £26 per dwelling. If there are areas which gain little or nothing from the shift of policy, where the full rigours of the Bill will still apply, those areas and we on this side will fight

the Measure as hard as ever. But it is clear that our pressure has captured a very considerable salient, the Birmingham salient. The mandatory £26 increase has ceased to exist. Part VI of the Bill is made to look a nonsense. The arithmetic of the subsidies is blown sky high. The Chancellor will receive nothing like his £104 million in 1972–73. The rent scrutiny boards will either be unemployed or given new criteria to work on, and more ministerial words will be eaten in a shorter time than ever in living memory, unless—this is the only possibility which could nullify what I am saying—the Minister was deceiving the House last Thursday, which I do not believe.

Mr. Latham: There is a serious point about which I am very concerned. My right hon. Friend referred to the coach and horses driven through Clause 50. I was a little afraid that my right hon. Friend might not have jumped on the back for a moment. I understood that he would deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about the function of the rent scrutiny boards. Is not another possible interpretation of the situation that the Government are holding back for the moment, but that when the boards get under way we shall still have the kind of rent increase the Government envisaged in the first place? Therefore, may this not merely be a temporary abatement, even if my hon. Friend's analysis of the position is right?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with my hon. Friend that this possibility exists, and it occurred to me over the weekend. But this conceivable possibility must be based on the assumption that the Government are deliberately deceiving the House and the country. They must have a general idea of the kind of decisions rent scrutiny boards will take. If they are now quoting figures of fair rents which turn out to bear no relation to what the boards ultimately decide, they would be guilty of so gross a deception that I do not think they would be likely to do it. I accept that logically and rationally what my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct, and it occurred to me, but I do not believe that this Government can be quite so blatant and cynical as to announce these lower rents in the firm expectation that they will then be pushed up again by the rent scrutiny boards.
Therefore, I believe that we have a definite modification of the Bill. There is still much in it that we intensely dislike and which is profoundly dangerous, but at least we have some retreat from the inflexible attitude of last November. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction on signalling the retreat. It is true that he tried to mute the sound out of natural pride and vanity, but there were enough alert ears about which have caught the sound, and the retreat is now in full swing, or very soon will be.
This must be especially demoralising for hon. Members opposite who, after months of silence in Committee, have finally, at this moment, found their voices to defend the Bill. They are still marching bravely up to the front, cheerfully singing their old-fashioned battle songs—only to find that under the Minister's eccentric generalship the front has begun to crumble before they get there.
It is not for me to say what happens to generals forced into humiliating retreat. The Minister, as we all discovered in Standing Committee, is a distinguished military historian, particularly fond of quoting the Napoleonic wars. I imagine that he will find the answer as to what is the proper fate of generals who signal the retreat in this way. But when a Minister is forced to retreat on the central part of a policy to which he has committed so much of his own and the Government's reputation, the answer is clear—he should resign.
In this case, I am prepared to offer a compromise. The Minister has consistently been used as the tool and scapegoat on this Bill as on the Parliamentary Question rigging, so let him stay and let the resignation be that of the true author of this whole disastrous episode—the Secretary of State for the Environment.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: I said last Thursday what a very amusing speaker the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is, and I think that he put on a remarkable performance today. By extremely adept footwork, he skipped round the real problem. This is not about poor council tenants but how the Bill affects housing and the housing programme in the country in the future. After sitting for five months on the Standing Committee, it was my opinion that all

the criticisms of the Bill were coming from the Opposition, but I have received a memorandum from the Royal Institute of British Architects in which it says that the Bill is a
…radical revisison of housing finance, which could breach the artificial barriers between housing sectors, has long been needed and the introduction of a unified rent policy is, therefore, a significant step forward.'
But then the memorandum starts to criticise the Bill. It goes on:
 But a rent policy is all that the White Paper provides: it does not provide any of the other things that make up a comprehensive housing policy. It reviews housing finance in the narrow sense of being concerned with finance only.
This is quite wrong. All of us who have sat for many months considering the Bill know that one of the main inducements to get the Bill through is that there is a special slum clearance subsidy which, for the next 15 years, will meet 75 per cent. of any loss on the rates incurred by slum clearance operations. Indeed, 700 more slums are being cleared each month than under the Labour Government, and this is with the new subsidy only, which came in on 1st April. Surely that must be to the credit side of the Bill.
Then there is much more help tot those areas in need. The new subsidies are designed to give more help to local councils with unsolved housing problems. Perhaps not in areas like mine, but in some parts of the country there are stress areas which really have almost a horrifying housing problem. The new subsidies will meet deficits where local councils' income from rents do not meet the expenditure on new buildings, repairs. management and the cost of refinancing maturing debt. That alone should commend the Bill to those hon. Members who represent areas of housing stress.
Of course, there are weaknesses in any Bill of this size. One of the greatest weaknesses—and this will obviously be coped with in time—is the fact that at the end of 1970 there were only 320 rent officers in England and Wales, with about 450 supporting staff. There were only 15 rent assessment panels in England and only one in Wales. My fear is that the rent rebates of the whole of this progressive Bill will be delayed because the skilled and specialised staff will not be available. My right hon. Friend will have had this well in mind in that talks


have already gone a long way to recruiting sufficient professional staff.
Whichever party was in Government would at this time have come to a confrontation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Things have grown out of all proportion. I give some figures from the National Income and Expenditure Book of 1971. The total public expenditure in housing subsidies rose from £180 million in 1966–67, or 1·1 per cent. of the total public expenditure of £15,931 million, to £320 million in 1970–71, or 1·4 per cent. of the greatly increased total public expenditure of £22,268 million. It is obvious that whoever was going to dictate our housing policy of the future would have had a confrontation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he was.
One factor never quoted in Committee —and I have not heard it quoted in the House—is that council and private tenants are all ratepayers. How does the Bill affect the general rate in an area? Does it mean that rates will increase? Or does it mean that they will go down? Other figures from the National Income and Expenditure Book put this into perspective also. Central Government subsidies have never been the only source for council dwellings. No one who has ever served on a local authority has ever been able to get away from the fact that the rate support to the housing revenue account has always been hotly contested by whichever side of the Chamber was not increasing it.
No one seems really to understand that these subsidies from the general rate fund also have been rising at the same rate as the amount of our gross national expenditure on housing. In 1966, the ratepayers paid towards council housing £74 million; in 1967, the figure was the same; in 1968, it was £84 million; in 1969, it was £104 million, and in 1970, it was £118 million. When one talks about removing subsidies, one is giving here another hidden subsidy to the ratepayers, and if one considers the council tenant as a ratepayer this must help him towards finding his rent. [Interruption.] It is obvious. The figures are here. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), should get to the book and bring himself up to date. The rate-

payer in 1970 was paying £118 million towards the housing revenue account.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry to be slightly exasperating the hon. Gentleman, but will he reflect for a moment on the make up of the housing revenue account and take into consideration items that are of common concern to the council tenants and which more than offset the rate-borne subsidy to the housing revenue account?

Mr. Hill: The trouble is that a council estate cannot exist in isolation. But it has to have parking areas and roads, a better road pattern will be established. Council estates cannot live in their insularity. The £118 million is a cash saving to everyone who pays rates. I have often heard the hon. Member's contention, but it does not hold water.
It was said in Committee many times that the Government were creating another means test, another dreadful form to fill up. All hon. Members will have had a copy of their own area rent rebate forms. I have a copy of the Southampton form. The only thing the council does not want to know on this form is the colour of a tenant's eyes.
We are continuing with that rent rebate form. There is no question of wanting to find out anything other than is already known by any local authority.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish to comment not on the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), but on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) who spoke about the impact of Clause 63 and its new subsection. During last Thursday's debate the Government moved an Amendment which they would have called a wrecking Amendment if the Opposition had moved it. In many ways it did wreck the Bill.
The twists and turns made by the Under-Secretary in trying to explain the situation following the debacle of last Thursday added to the wreck. The absence of the Secretary of State for the Environment is bettered only by the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales although 260,000 Welsh families are affected. My own authority will certainly be claiming under subsection (6) that its existing rents are fair by any


definition, particularly by the definition produced and seemingly approved by Birmingham last Thursday. I think that a whole host of other authorities will follow suit.
Subsection (6) and other major Amendments to the Bill reveal its central fallacy. It is not a point of substance that has just emerged. What has clearly emerged as a central fallacy is that there is nothing objective about the determination of fair rents. There is no objective decision called a fair rent. The fallacy of all the arguments by the Government is that they are replacing an irrational system of determining rents in the local authority sector by a rational system.
The Francis Committee, investigating the fair rent system in the private sector could not find objective, clearly defined criteria for fair rents. What is fair about the 1965 and 1968 Rent Acts is the way in which rents are arbitrated. The fairness comes not in any criteria for determining rents, but in the fact that either party, tenant or landlord, may go to a reasonably objective body to argue a case.
What strikes one more and more about the way that procedure has worked is the rough and ready down-the-middle way in which rent officers and rent assessment panels have endeavoured to determine a rent. What they have not done and what has been proved impossible over the last six years has been to provide clearly-defined, objective, rational criteria for establishing fair rents.
What is so objectionable about the Bill is that it is impossible to find objective criteria. That is what so many Opposition Members have been saying. The rents of more than 5 million families are to be fixed and yet there is nothing in the Bill to ensure fair arbitration, as in 1965 and 1968. The Government have not included an objective method of establishing fair rents.
I think it was Della Nevitt, one of the greatest authorities on housing, who, in a perceptive article on the Bill made this point. Unlike the fair rent machinery of 1965 and 1968 which allowed both parties affected by an application to go to a rent officer or rent tribunal, the Bill has no such provision. Rent officers have been doing a rough and ready rule-of-thumb job in making assessments. However, after his decision either party may

appeal to a rent assessment committee. That is what is fair about the fair rent machinery of 1965 and 1968.
In a Bill purporting to apply the principle of fair rents to the whole local authority sector this fairness in arbitration does not exist. Council tenants will have no rights. They will not enjoy anything like the same rights of appeal to a rent scrutiny board.
The rent scrutiny boards are to be given administrative powers which will make George Orwell's "1984 "look as though it has occurred in 1972. For years we have been increasingly concerned about a massive extension of administrative power. This House has often expressed its concern to ensure democratic scrutiny of bodies with administrative powers, albeit sometimes understandable powers. Yet in one fell swoop we are to extend to administrative bodies, rent scrutiny boards, enormous power over one of the most delicate and important issues of all—the cost of homes and rents.
The basic and evil principle of the Bill is that of giving small handfuls of people such enormous power. That is one of its most appalling aspects. Despite all our efforts, the boards will not have to meet in public. They will not have to report the nature of their meetings. No procedure will govern their proceedings. The parties may be debarred and will have no access to the boards except by written representation.
The first and fundamental reason why we should not give a Third Reading to the Bill is the massive extension of administrative power to a body not answerable to any elected representative. There is no such thing as an objective fair rent. All that was fair about the 1965 and 1968 Rent Acts was the reasonably fair system of arbitration, but that system does not exist under the Bill. That makes the Bill all the more reprehensible.
As a result of last Thursday's decision, my own authority and other Welsh authorities will seek an amelioration of the increase in October However, as Birmingham found, we will not be able to draw on the experience of the fair rent machinery in Wales.
The number of fair rents determined are so few that they will serve no useful purpose in fixing the rents in most of the


South Wales valleys. I quoted the case of my own authority last Thursday. We have fixed only 54 rents in seven years. From that experience the local authority housing managers are supposed to fix the rents for over 6,000 families in my constituency. The pattern is the same in every other South Wales authority. The experience of rent officers is totally irrelevant to fixing fair rents in the local authority sector.
We are forced to look at the alternative of gross values. We had a good hard look at this in Merthyr and we found that if we imposed an extra £1 a week from this October the ratio of rent to gross value would be three times. There is not a rent scrutiny board, a rent officer or rent assessment committee which would by any stretch of the imagination suggest that that would be anything but an excessive and exorbitant rent over and above the so-called fair rent.
South Wales authorities will find themselves in what one can call a "Birmingham situation ". We will seek under the late change in the Bill to avoid imposing anything like the £1 a week increase in October. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will give his premature blessing with the same degree of enthusiasm as the Minister for Housing and Construction gave to Birmingham last Thursday even though he is not facing local elections in the coming weeks.
The argument central to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the great thing about the Bill is that there is a rent rebate scheme. I am not against rent rebates. They are an essential and important part of any housing scheme. I am not willing to accept the hypocritical advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, about our introduction of rent allowances. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). Such advice coming from hon. Gentlemen, who from 1957 until 1964 unleashed the greatest known increases in the private sector as a result of decontrol, without any rent allowances, which led to Rachmanism and the necessity for the fair rent machinery in 1965, is pure hypocrisy. The last thing we will do is to take lectures from hon. Gentlemen opposite about raising the rents in the private sector.
What is remarkable about their argument is the fact that they claim so many people will qualify for rebate. Apparently, the most marvellous thing to do is to ensure that over a half and in many cases 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of local authority tenants can come cap in hand for rebates to ameliorate the worst excesses of the rents. Is that the sort of society hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to create? Do they wish to increase the cost of such a basic commodity as the roof over a person's head to such an extent that over half the people have to claim rebates? What a ridiculous situation, when rents are raised so high that administrators must be employed left, right and centre to go through the means-tested system and hand back money to people from whom it should never have been taken.
The logic is surely that once a benefit of this kind covers 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the people then the commodity has been made too expensive. Surely the answer is to keep the rents lower rather than to create this odious situation whereby the rents of the majority of tenants have to be rebated. Hon. Gentlemen opposite fought the last General Election on the "Scroungers' Charter" basis. I remember the whispers they put around, that the Labour Government would introduce the skivers' and scroungers' society. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opopsite—and I am sorry to say it, because I do not agree with the spirit that produced such feelings—that this Bill is one of the greatest contributions to this sentiment. Time and again at meetings I have had people getting up and saying this.
I have tried to oppose the expression of such a sentiment but this Bill will unleash that sentiment on a much greater scale. It is one of the most repressive aspects of the Bill. The high rent system tied to an extensive rent rebate scheme means that social division will take place on every estate, between street and street, house and house. There will be bitterness between neighbours as they begin to compare what they are paying with what their neighbours are paying and begin to wonder whether someone is getting more than they should. This Bill unleashes that sentiment on a much greater scale than any other Measure I can think of under any Government.
And it is all a question of prejudice! This Bill started out as a prejudice against council tenants. The Tory Party thinks that all council tenants are fair game. This is a Government which has picked on Rudi Dutschke, council tenants, UCS, striking workers or the prescription-happy families whom they thought were benefiting too greatly from the Welfare State. The one central plank of the evil philosophy has been the belief that the majority of council tenants belong to the Jaguar-driving jet set, live off the fat of the land, and can pay a lot more for the roof over their heads. That has been central to the philosophy of this Bill and to the idea of charging fair or excessive rents to the majority of council tenants.
Now they are finding that they are wrong. Clause 63(6) says basically, "We did not know the rents that average people should pay ". Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did not know what people in Newcastle were paying; the Secretary of State for Wales did not know what tenants in Merthyr Tydvil were paying. The Bill no doubt arrived on his desk in the later stages of drafting. He could not possibly have accepted Clause 63 imposing an extra £1 a week on every tenant, or most tenants, in Merthyr Tydvil. If he had bothered to find out what the rents were there he would have found, as the Secretary of State is finding out with Newcastle, Birmingham and Portsmouth, that if I is added to the rents they will go through the fair rent ceiling. We will be there at the Welsh Office to invoke the provisions of subsection (6) in October.
The most nauseating aspect of the Bill is that behind it is the belief that council tenants should pay more than £1 a week extra on their rents. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are astonished at the fair rent levels now being fixed, but it is they who are astonished—astonished to find that the majority of council tenants are paying fair and reasonable rents. This extra imposition, the largest swingeing increase that can be imposed in any one year, would drive the majority of rents in many authorities through the fair rent ceiling. The Government have only just found this out. This demonstrates that the Bill is based on the prejudiced belief that the majority of council tenants are enjoying benefits

which they do not deserve, such as the benefit of a roof over their heads at too cheap a price. That was behind the philosophy which gave birth to the policy.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, who has left the Chamber—and, thank goodness, after his speech—said that the Labour Government, when they were carrying out their housing finance review, did not come up with an alternative policy. I was one of the junior Ministers involved in that review. Many of us believed—and this is one of the reasons why we did not complete our work—that housing is more than just a question of rents. We do not want a rent Bill, which is what this Bill is. We want a new housing policy which will result in better housing for the majority of our people. The Bill will not achieve that.
The 1969– housing finance review condemned out of hand the application of the fair rents principle to local authority housing for the three basic reasons why we should not give this Bill a Third Reading. First, it will impose unnecessary, savage increases in rents. That was the advice which the Labour Government Ministers received from their advisers. Secondly, it is impossible to create machinery which is workable for the arbitration of fair rents for the whole local authority sector. As the Bill demonstrates, all that it does is to produce unfair administrative machinery to ensure that tenants do not have a say in the determination of rents. Thirdly, and most important, it will mean massive profits sooner or later on many housing revenue accounts and there is no fair, just and reasonable way of distributing those profits. The Bill does not contain a fair, just and reasonable way of distributing the profits. The Government will simply cream off the surpluses on housing revenue accounts.
For those three reasons, we should not give the Bill a Third Reading. It is one of the worst pieces of housing legislation ever to come before the House.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: the debate began with a fascinating exercise in geography from the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who made anything but what I would describe as a Third Reading speech. The game


was given away by the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)—the evil genius of his party, who writes the housing policy of the Labour Party, even though he does not sit on the Opposition Front Bench. I recall his intervention when he advocated the outright municipalisation of all property. That point has been noted for the future.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands), whose speech was in part a Third Reading speech, did a great disservice by talking about tenants going cap in hand for rent rebates. He should know full well that a rent rebate, just like a rate rebate, is part of the law, and the attitude which he adopted, which might discourage people and make them think that it is humiliating to apply for a rent rebate, does no service to the people in the greatest need. The hon. Gentleman tried to draw a distinction between the fair rents principle as applied in the private and public sectors. He said that it was subject to the rough justice of the rent officer and the rent assessment panel in the private sector but there was nothing similar in the public sector. Perhaps he is used to squalid local authorities like Merthyr Tydvil trying to defy the law. He should realise that local authorities are elected bodies and are therefore the right people to deal with the question of fair rents.

Mr. Rowlands: I ask the Secretary of State for Wales, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to repudiate the appalling remarks of his hon. Friend, otherwise it will be thought in Wales that he shares the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman, who probably has never set foot in Merthyr Tydvil. If he does so, I cannot guarantee his security or safety.

Mr. Finsberg: I am sorry to know I shall require police protection for a visit to Merthyr Tydvil—a town which I have visited on many pleasant occasions and intend to visit in future. The fixing by a local authority of what it regards as a fair rent which may then be subject to the opinion of the rent scrutiny board is what is required in the public sector. I see nothing wrong in it.
I give the Bill a general welcome. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for the Environment said, it repairs the monstrous injustice as a result of which there was no question of a rent allowance being given to private tenants. This is a very important concession which has been made. The question of council rents must be looked at in the context of the Bill in a common sense light. I wonder whether any right hon. or hon. Member opposite dissents from what I believe is still, if not Clause 4, then a basic tenet of the Labour Party, namely, from each according to his means to each according to his needs. This is precisely what the Bill does in the public sector and it should be difficult for any hon. Member to object to it.
The control of many local authorities changed hands last Thursday, and it would have been surprising if it had not in the face of one of the most vicious and scurrilous campaigns I have seen conducted in 22 years in local government affairs—a campaign deliberately designed to harp on the fears of many people who needed advice but did not get it from the Labour Party. In 12 or 18 months' time, when the Bill, as an Act, is fully implemented, council tenants will realise that they were taken for a ride by the Labour Party, and it will be the Labour Party which will suffer.
I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, will make one thing clear. Will he say, not in the Fabian Society language of the right hon. Member for Grimsby, but in his own earthy Willesden language, whether he on behalf of his party will advise local authorities to comply with the law'? Will he say to the London Borough of Camden, for example, "The Labour Opposition say to you, ' When this Bill is law, you must operate it' "? I expect the hon. Gentleman to answer "Yes" or "No ".
What we are witnessing is encouragement to people to break the law. Whether I like the law or not, I shall obey it as long as it is the law. We should remember that every local councillor, whether it be in Brent, Liverpool, Birmingham or Camden, took an oath of office which he signed before a town clerk to carry out his duties. I wish to know whether the Labour Party will encourage breaking the law.
I hope that the Governments information about the rent allowances available in the private sector will be in simple language, as clear as possible and given the most widespread publicity so that the fear campaign to which I referred earlier can quickly be countered. There is a grave danger that the misrepresentations which have taken place may already have taken hold of peoples' minds and may prevent some people applying for genuinely-needed rent allowances. I hope my right hon. Friend will deal with this situation.
I hope that the report of this debate will be noted, particularly by those people who last Thursday elected Labour councils, so that they will realise that less than 30 Labour Members of Parliament have fought this Bill today comma by comma, full-stop by full-stop, and line by line. The Labour Party is no longer interested because they know full well that, when the impact of the Bill is fully realised by council tenants, the results will rebound upon Labour since the tenants will realise that they have been taken for a ride.
I hope that my right hon. Friend in his reply will be able to say that he proposes to do something about the service charges on private tenants. I believe that the Bill, on balance, when enacted will go down as a useful piece of legislation. It continues and extends the fair rent principle which was introduced by the Labour Party, and I believe that there is no difference between us on this score.
Furthermore, it expands and continues the system of rent rebates which are a joint product of the two parties. This will give an opportunity of rent rebate to 40 per cent. of local authority tenants who, up to now, have not been able to claim a rent rebate. This does not mean that 40 per cent. of individual tenants will qualify or will need to qualify. It means that the council tenants living under 40 per cent. of authorities will no longer be regarded as second-class citizens and it must be remembered that many of these authorities are Labour-controlled. I believe that the Bill is a good piece of legislation, that it should be given a Third Reading, and that it deserves to be passed into law as quickly as possible.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) referred to rent allowances, but I must warn tenants who live in privately-rented houses not to expect too much. I am in favour of allowances and there is no reason why they should not exist, but experience in Birmingham where a pilot scheme was introduced shows that not much will happen.
It is estimated that there are about 60,000 privately rented houses in Birmingham. The total number of successful applications has amounted to less than 250 although the scheme has been in operation for 18 months. The take-up has been ridiculously low. There are various reasons for this low take-up which I do not propose to analyse today.
The Secretary of State referred to the possibility of extending the rent allowances to furnished tenancies. I am in favour of the proposal but I do not expect too much from it unless it is accompanied by the repudiation of the Francis Committee recommendation and unless there is also control in terms of security and rent fixing for furnished lettings similar to that which exists in the unfurnished sector. Unless there is such provision, I am afraid that rent allowances for furnished lettings will not get very far. I support such a suggestion but I wish to give that warning.
This debate will be dominated by what happened in Birmingham last week and by the meaning of events there. Is the Birmingham proposal, and the Minister's response to it, to be regarded simply as a disreputable electoral device in the council elections, or does it mean the beginning of the grand retreat? I do not yet know the answer. Perhaps the Minister will throw light on this matter in his reply.
The Birmingham Labour councillors believe that even if the rents proposed by Birmingham were accepted by the Minister as fair rents they would still be unjustified. It is proposed to increase rents by an average of 35p, but the Birmingham Labour councillors contend that on the basis of a £3 million surplus in the account no increase is necessary and that there should be a reduction.


Even if the Minister is beating something of a retreat, I still regard this as a bad Bill. None of these increases is justified and certainly the whole machinery of the Bill is misplaced.
If an average increase of 35p is proposed—perhaps a little more in some local authorities where the present rents are at a lower level than in Birmingham —is it really necessary to introduce the vast machinery of the Bill? Let us bear in mind what these provisions will mean. There will be the housing commissioner; the Bill provides for fines of £50 on the tenant or £400 on a councillor who does not co-operate; and there is a vast mechanism of alterations and subsidies. Is this radical Bill—a Bill which affects the whole basis of subsidies—necessary just to provide for an average increase in rent of 35p? It appears to be a complete and utter nonsense. If the Minister eventually beats a retreat and accepts our arguments, why has all this legislation been necessary?
There is no doubt that the Bill's provisions, particularly those in Part V and the other parts of the Bill relating to local authority houses, are an astonishingly logical achievement. They are logical and coherent and they embody the sort of logic that is very much akin to madness. Obviously an enormous amount of ingenuity and calculation has gone into the Bill. Every device has been used to see that no tenant shall escape its provision and that no local authority is able to escape its effects. I repeat that if all these devices have been introduced to achieve an average increase of 35p, this makes nonsense of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman, after a good deal of questioning in Committee, gave some interesting figures on the finances of the Bill, but the figures will have to be recast if he accepts the Birmingham proposals. If the Minister decides to accept those proposals, we are certainly entitled to have—perhaps tonight—a new statement of the financial consequences of the Bill so that we may know what this will mean in terms of subsidy. We should surely know how much the rent increases will be and what will be the effect on the various subsidies. Obviously this would amount to a radical departure. If the Minister decides to retreat we shall welcome it, but it will still not make the Bill a very good one.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said it was right in law to apply for rent rebate, but he must know that every means-tested benefit is unpopular. I accept that some means-tested benefits are necessary and cannot be avoided; it is obvious that in supplementary benefit a means test cannot be avoided. A large number of people will always refuse to take up means-tested benefits because they consider that to do so would amount to a form of humiliation. Whether that view is right is another matter, but it is certainly a fact that they do not like the sort of means test forms which they have to complete. It leads to jealousy and friction between neighbours. Means tests should as far as possible be avoided, and the extension of means test by the Bill to cover high rents is bad.
I now want to refer to some matters which I raised with the Minister on Report but to which I received no answers. The Minister has by now probably examined the Birmingham document, and here may I say that I am not dealing with the assessment of rents. It says that council rents cannot be assessed upon the basis of comparability with the private sector, because in the Birmingham area there are very few equivalent rents in the private sector with which to make a comparison. This is an important matter because, during our debates upstairs, it was assumed that council rents would be decided upon the basis of comparability with the private sector.
If comparability is out, what is to be the criterion? How does the right hon. Gentleman interpret Clause 50? What on earth does it mean? What is meant by scarcity in the public sector. How does one decide the degree of scarcity? How on earth does one decide what council rents would be if there were a balance between supply and demand? Who will decide that? How will he guess it if there are no market factors upon which to base a calculation?
What guidance will local authorities receive on this issue? For that matter, what guidance will the Minister give to the scrutiny boards? Will the guidance be published? Will Members of Parliament know what guidance is given to councils and to the rent scrutiny boards? How will the Minister interpret Clause 50, and what on earth will it mean when it is applied to the public sector?
It has been assumed throughout the debates on the Bill, indeed almost taken for granted, that to apply Clause 50—I gather that this is what the working party did—one looks in the private sector for a similar house, built at a similar time, with similar amenities and in a similar locality. discovers what has been decided as the fair rent for that house and then applies that figure in the public sector. If that basis goes, how will the assessment be made?
There was a good deal of discussion in Committee on the report of the working party on fair rent and about the purloined document. I do not see why that document should have been private. Does the Minister repudiate that document? It discloses a level of rents substantially higher than the fair rents put forward by Birmingham. It was no doubt prepared by the Minister's officers, who used certain criteria. We have never been told what they were. Was it done on the basis of comparability?
The figures in that document showed that in the Birmingham area there would be an increase of about £2 a week in the first assessment and that in three years' time there would be an average increase of about £3.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: The document referred to by my hon. Friend was a public document, despite what the Minister said repeatedly in Committee. It was published in several journals before we saw it in Committee. It used the basis of comparability—or the Department did—in arriving at its conclusions, and it is important to bear that in mind. That is an important factor in the whole situation.

Mr. Silverman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It was my impression that the figures were produced on the basis of comparability, but the Minister said that the document was prepared for some unknown purpose. For what purpose was it prepared? Presumably it was prepared in order to give local authorities some idea of the rents which they would have to charge.
The document was circulated to all local authorities, and housing managers and borough treasurers saw it long before we saw it in Committee. It was not a secret document, and presumably it was produced for a purpose—namely, to show

housing managers and borough treasurers what they were likely to get from fair rents. The Minister has not told us whether he accepts that document or whether he repudiates it entirely.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am not quite clear in what respect the Birmingham proposals deviate from the conditions in Clause 50(1), which says that
 In determining a fair rent for a dwelling…regard shall be had…to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and in particular to the age, character and locality of the dwelling and to its state of repair.
In what respect does the document not follow those criteria?

Mr. Silverman: I thought I had dealt with that but I am prepared to revert to it. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the document produced by Birmingham for the Minister.

Mr. Raison: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: That document does not use the basis of comparability. There is nothing about that in the Birmingham document. It deals with gross values. It deals with rent incomes. It deals with the point that too many people should not have to apply for rebates. The last two matters are not embraced in Clause 50.
The Birmingham figures are substantially lower than those produced by the working party in respect of the West Midlands. What I am asking the Minister is whether he repudiates the working party's figures. Does he say, having examined the figures, that they are no longer valid? Why were these figures produced in the first place? The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures were produced for the purpose of working. Working for what? Presumably the document was produced—I can conceive of no other reason—for the purpose of giving local authorities some idea of the rent increases which they would have to apply, the effect which that would have upon their finances, how that would counterbalance subsidies and what tenants would have to pay. I understood that that was the purpose of the document—I can conceive of no other—and those are matters which we are entitled to have explained to the Minister.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill. Even if there is a qualified retreat by the


Minister it will still be a bad Bill, and we are justified in voting against it on Third Reading.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Speaking for the first time on the Bill at this late stage, I do not intend to enter into any of the controversies which have understandably arisen about it in Committee and on Report, but as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) has adverted to Rachmanism and linked it with the Rent Act, 1957, I cannot help wondering whether he or any other hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side can specify one case in which the late Peter Rachman bought, for the purpose of exploitation, a house which was not rent controlled. If I am right in thinking that he never did so, I find it difficult to understand how the myth has grown up that it was the 1957 Act which created Rachmanism. It was, on the contrary, the first step towards cutting the ground from under the feet of Rachmanism, but that is not the point about which I want to address the House.
I want to touch on only one matter relating to the operation of the Bill when it becomes law, a matter which has not been publicly raised in any of the previous debates. That is the effect which the fair rent system will have in practice on disabled people living in accommodation specially designed and built for them by local authorities. Provision is made in the Bill for one category of disabled, the blind, in Schedule 3(7) (2), but there is no corresponding provision in the Measure for those classified as disabled in a more general sense in the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
It is possible that an Amendment might be moved in another place to remedy this deficiency on lines which I had hoped to introduce by means of an Amendment on Report. If that should happen I hope the Minister and his colleagues in another place will look at it sympathetically. But even without waiting for that further stage my right hon. Friend could, and I hope will, give evidence of sympathy in his reply tonight to a suggestion which I have to make in regard to Clause 23, which deals with the advisory committee on rent rebates and rent allowances.
I observe that in Committee a number of suggestions were put to my right hon. Friend, without success, about the composition of the advisory committee. I had a further suggestion to make on Report which it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to put into effect without any Amendment to the Clause. It is that the advisory committee when appointed should have among its membership at least one person, preferably more,
 with experience of work among and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled ".
The 1970 Act provides a means of definition of the chronically sick and disabled which could easily be applied to this Bill.
It occurred to me as an alternative possibility that the same principle might be adopted in making additional appointments to the rent scrutiny boards under Clause 51(1), but those boards will of course be concerned not with rebates and allowances but with fixing fair rents. As far as I understand the process—not having been a member of the Committee and therefore not having had the opportunity of scrutinising it with the same thoroughness as other hon. Members—the rent scrutiny boards will have to operate under quite tightly drawn rules laid down for them, and that will make it difficult for them to make exceptions, even with the best of good will.
The phrase
 with experience of work among and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled 
is taken directly from Section 15 of the 1970 Act. That Measure goes further. It adds that consideration should be given to the desirability of providing that the person or persons with that experience should include one or more persons themselves classified as chronically sick or disabled.
I am reluctant to push my right hon. Friend the Minister so far because there are disabilities of so many and such different kinds that it is hard to think of one disabled person speaking for the needs of them all—for example, of a paraplegic speaking for the needs of the blind andvice versa.That is why I would prefer it to be a person not necessarily disabled but with experience of the disabled in his professional work. One would of course not raise any objection to a disabled person being appointed. I only say that I would not insist on it.
In one way or another the special needs of the disabled in local authority housing should be recognised in the Bill. I raise this point because in my constituency the local authority has made exceptional provision for the disabled. There is, therefore, an unusually large number of people likely to he affected, it is feared adversely, under the Bill.
I have no intention of waxing emotional on this subject. The last thing those people want is an appeal to the emotion or concessions made as charity. They simply want to be enabled so far as possible to lead normal lives, to go out to work and in every way to become or remain members of the community.
It would be useless for local authorities to provide at great expense specially designed accommodation for disabled people if the disabled could not afford under the Bill to live in that accommodation. I know that many of them are living very near the margin as it is. I could easily send my right hon. Friend details of many cases drawn from my constituency, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to do so.
The local authority in Oxford has been exceptionally progressive in making provision for such cases. There are many disabled people in Oxford and elsewhere who will remain profoundly worried about their prospects under the Bill unless an appropriate Amendment is made to Schedule 3 or Clause 23 or unless the Minister is willing to exercise his discretion on a non-statutory basis to set their anxieties at rest in relation to the composition of the advisory committee and other bodies that will be concerned with rent rebates and allowances or the fixing of fair rents.
I hope that before the end of the debate my right hon. Friend will find it possible to set their anxieties at rest in the way I have suggested.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Very much of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) was put last Thursday when, on Clause 50, the Opposition moved an Amendment which would have ensured that all circumstances, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman, were taken into account. The Government re-

jected and defeated our proposal, which is regrettable because irrespective of politics it is clear that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a vital and human one which should be covered by the Bill.
I regret that the Secretary of State did not take this opportunity to answer some of the many questions that have been put to him with regularity during the many months that the Bill has been going through the House. I had hoped, for example, that he would have dealt with the subsidy question. Whenever we mention subsidies the right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, "We are redistributing them but are not cutting them ". If the right hon. Gentleman still maintains that subsidies are not being cut, will he explain why the Exchequer estimates that the subsidy bill of £330 million for 1971–72 will be down to £314 million for 1972–73?
Are the figures of £330 million for the current year reducing to £314 million for the year 1972–73 correct? Is it anticipated that by 1976–77 the figure will rise again to £348 million? In other words, is it correct that between 1971–72 and 1976–77 there will be an increase of £18 million? In six years it will rise by £3 million a year, which will not even keep pace with inflation.
Therefore, to get the subsidy argument right, will the Minister once and for all agree or disagree with those figures and put the record straight as to what he believes is the correct subsidy figure for which he is aiming by 1976–77? Many of us are quite satisfied that the Minister intends to reduce subsidies to zero. That was tried last in 1957. It was the whole purpose of the Rent Act, 1957, and it was done. As a result of that exercise. however, house building was disastrous, and we got Rachmanism and every other objectionable feature.
It seems to some of us that the Government have now come to the view that they will get to the same idea of reducing subsidies but by doing it this way. Clause 12 is the way it will certainly partially be done, by continually referring to housing revenue accounts but meaning "reckonable expenditure" within those accounts. I have put questions to the Minister and he has refused point blank to say what he means by reckon-able expenditure. Local authorities are


entitled to know from the Bill; everything else is spelt out in great detail. Clauses 93, 94 and 95 spell out in absolute detail. Why cannot we have "reckonable expenditure "spelt out? Whatever the size of the housing revenue account, if the reckonable expenditure is reduced to a small proportion of the whole, the housing account will be in surplus at a very much earlier date. That is when the Minister will begin withdrawing the subsidies and taking half of the surpluses that arise thereafter. That is really what the argument is all about.
Is that what the Minister intends? Will he explain what he means by "reckonable expenditure" and not, as we have in the Bill, a statement that it will mean what the Minister wants it to mean at any time when he wants it to mean something?
I have never heard such gobbledegook. Will the Minister comment on whether, in his view, the statement his Department has made, that the very favourable financial results arising from his proposals in the Bill are due to the enhanced rent income that will arise from council tenants because of the raising of rent to fair rent levels is valid and that council tenants will be meeting the cost rather than either the Exchequer or the local ratepayer? Is that still the Minister's view? That was his view in December, 1970. Therefore any redistribution, and "the poor" and "the needy "and all that rubbish, does not apply. What the Minister is saying, as he said in December, 1970, is that the council tenants will be carrying the whole burden of housing. It is important that we should have this information from him tonight, before we send this awful Bill on its way.
My next point is about economic rents. We have had so many arguments about how this will be done that no one seems too sure. We have the argument of Clause 50, the argument for assessing in rateable value terms. Yet the 1965 Act specifically said that rateable values were not to be taken into account. That was the way it was not to be done. But Clause 50 is exactly the way that rateable values are determined. Is the Minister suggesting that rateable values will be the means by which fair rents—what

he calls fair rents, what I call economic rents—will be fixed?
I have looked with interest at the figures for Birmingham and I have checked in my own constituency. After the debate last Thursday, I was rather pleased because I felt sure that as a result rents in my constituency would not rise and that they would be considered economic rents. I have looked at the post-war bungalow in Birmingham. The Minister referred to £2·59 as the present rent; £2·85 was the fair rent.
The rent of a poor old place in my constituency, a three-roomed flat built in 1927 and owned by the Greater London Council, with a bath in the kitchen over the top of which one puts a board, and if one is not using it as a bath one eats from it. is currently £3. So we have £2·85 for a bungalow with a garden back and front, post-war. and at an economic rent, but I have a wretched flat owned by the Greater London Council, unmodernised since 1927, with a bath in the kitchen at £3
Then I looked at the post-war period to get an equivalent three-roomed GLC flat. The rent was £6 a week. A threebedroomed four-roomed flat is £7·70 at present. When I see what the Minister has now agreed with Birmingham as about right, and that therefore Birmingham will have a direction which allows the council not to put up rents by £1 in October, I look with satisfaction at the Minister's statement on Thursday and shall ensure that it has very wide publicity in my area, because clearly we shall gain from that. My constituents will be extremely pleased. I hope we shall have no backing down and that the Government will not make all the usual noises and excuses, saying "He really did not actually mean it. What he said was that it would not come down; but, on the other hand, he did not say that it would not go up ".
It would be most unpleasant for our political life if the Minister changed his views simply because of an election between the time of his statement and the time at which he has been drawn up tight against the present situation.
One hon. Member on the Government side referred to the idea that in these economic rents we on these benches were being obtuse, because the 1965 Act was running and was introduced by this side


of the House and therefore we should accept the position. But, as I have said so many times, that is not the situation. On 19th July, 1970, I tabled five Questions to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to put in the Bill all the relevant Clauses from the 1965 Act, which would give the council tenant exactly the same protection as the 1965 Act gave to the private tenant. The Minister dismissed those Questions with four lines telling me that it was a different case, that they did not apply and that as far as he was concerned the rents would be set by some administrative means. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to all five Questions. There was one short answer.
From that, clearly one must accept that there is a sharp difference between the 1965 Act and the setting of fair rents under that Act, and the setting of economic rents under the Bill. I have pressed time and again with Questions since then and the Minister has refused to accept that there is any correlation whatsoever between the 1965 Act and this Bill. We therefore should not keep on referring to the 1965 Act as though it had some validity in regard to economic rents as laid down in the Bill.
We have argued about rent rebates many times. The Government are aware that the take-up of rent rebates is minimal as against what people ought to have. Those of us who over the years have run rebate schemes know the difficulty of getting people to reveal their financial affairs. I tried to make it as easy as possible. I did not, as is envisaged in the Bill, go to the employers every six months in order to get them to countersign that a certain sum was the tenant's gross income. Incidentally, one can imagine employers getting a little upset at having to keep acting as accountants to local authorities. I never went to the employers, but we still had difficulties in getting people to tell us their personal affairs and incomes in order to obtain that to which I thought they were entitled.
Under this new scheme it is pretty clear, as the Minister and the Department must know from the evidence they have had from all over the country, that the take-up will be minimal. The Minister is very proud of the fact that he is giving 75 per cent. of the cost, but he knows very well that the cost to him will be

very small because of the high rents the tenants will have to pay. There is a tendency for hon. Members to keep quoting the elderly widow who is to get such a lot of money that she will not have to pay anything—it seems that she will be paid to live in the premises. That is ridiculous, because in any case she would have been taken care of by supplementary benefit. Many of the cases referred to by the Government would have been looked after by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I wonder how many of the 800 cases in Droitwich who according to the Secretary of State claimed rebate under the scheme were supplementary benefit cases already. My guess is that all of them will be entitled to supplementary benefit, so this is simply paper work accountancy with no substance behind it.
To pretend that people will be happy to pay these rents is nonsense. If his present rent is £3, a man earning £30 gross and having two children will, it is said, obtain £1 rebate, so he will be well off. What no one tells him is that he will be paying £2 more than before. So whilst his £3 rent has gone up to £5, he is getting £1 rebate to stop his rent going to £6. If he is earning only £25, it is said that he will get a rebate of £2, but what is not said is that his £3 would have gone to £4 and all that is being done is stopping it going to £6. I therefore agree with those who believe that people will be very angry when they come up against this type of rebate scheme which pretends that they will get more when they will not.
Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 3, which is to be found in page 115 of the Bill, says that in certain circumstances people who are sub-letting do not have to account for the moneys so obtained. What does that mean? Does it mean that people being assessed for rebate will be able to have a lodger, or a sub-tenant as the Bill describes him, and that the amount of money they receive from the sub-tenant either in rent or in rates need not be declared? If that is true, a rather interesting situation can arise. The best thing a tenant can do then will be to declare everyone in the family a sub-tenant, in which case they can avoid the situation that would otherwise arise where a son or daughter may he earning more than the father. Is it the intention that any tenant


can take in a sub-tenant, legally or illegally, and not count the amount received?
This is a very bad Bill. I hoped that today the Minister would have given us some idea of what he thought it would produce in terms of homes. Last July, when we debated homelessness in London, the Minister and I agreed that the important thing was to build homes for people in London. I have checked how far the Bill will help my constituents, and I listened with interest to the argument that if more houses and flats are sold it will be marvellous. I do not know who will buy a flat with the bath in the kitchen. I do not know whether it will be the right hon. Gentleman: he has not got a very high reputation in my area. They call him "Bugsy" Amery because of his association with the slum properties there. It is wrong so to describe him, but there it is. They call him the "finger man of the Mafia" because of the expert way in which he is putting the armlock on local authority landlords to charge the rents he fixes.
The Minister tonight has to justify his Bill in terms of houses in areas like mine, in the centre of London, where my constituents already pay very high rents and people live in appalling circumstances, where 10,000 families are on the waiting lists in both Hackney and Islington. We have not built any little bungalows to sell as they have in Birmingham. We have blocks of flats 10, 15 and 20 storeys high. If people living in desperate circumstances are told how they are to be rehoused as a result of the Bill, my constituents will understand it better.
The Government have failed to explain the Bill. Many questions have been asked about it. Local authorities are frustrated, housing managers cannot understand it and treasurers cannot follow it. Nor can they get any sensible answers about it. No local government association has supported the Bill. I believe it to be the only Bill that has ever gone through this House without a good word said about it by anyone. The AMC, the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association—no matter what the association, the Minister will find it disenchanted. That was their feeling when they were Tory-controlled, and I think that after tomorrow their stric-

tures on the Bill will be a great deal harsher. But even under Tory control none had a good word for it. Nor will they have a good word for any Bill that is launched in this way without those who have to operate it understanding it I cannot see how the Bill can succeed.
I therefore hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have second thoughts. I am extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman backed down on one Clause on Thursday night. I commend him for that. I do not wish him to feel that I am being churlish—it was an excellent back-down, and I accept it. It means that people will be reasonably happy at the thought that their rents will not be of such a high order. Nevertheless, the Bill is pure party political dogma. It has no relevance to the problem of providing homes for the people. The right hon. Gentleman intends to cut back the subsidy to zero. The Bill is a disaster for housing, and I shall vote most heartily against it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Although I shall not comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), I shall inevitably cover some of the same ground. I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in this respect: this is a complicated Bill to understand and it takes a great deal of reading. However, if he reads through it a little more carefully he will find the answer to his question about lodgers.
I apologise for having stated last Thurs. day that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was absent when we discussed in Committee the possible reactions of local authorities to the Bill and the possibility that they would refuse to implement it. As the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) pointed out, the right lion. Gentleman had begun that debate with a fairly long speech. in the course of which he stated:
 I wholly accept the principle that it is no part of my duty as a democrat, a socialist and still less as an elected member of my party's parliamentary committee to condone. let alone encourage, defiance of the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee E: 22nd March. 1972, c. 4178.]
I therefore acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear on that occasion that he could neither condone


nor encourage any defiance of the law which might take place by local authorities. I provisionally withdrew my statement last Thursday, but I am now happy to do so formally.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments today about Birmingham. Now that the local elections are over, we shall apparently have a new line on this subject from the Opposition. The Opposition having up till now done all that they could to produce horror stories and having tramped round the country saying what life will be like under the Bill, it seems that we are now to hear a somewhat different tune, judging by the right hon. Member for Grimsby and the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury.
I am reminded of a famous remark by Mr. Nigel Birch, who is now a member of the other house, when on Dr. Dalton's resignation as Chancellor of the Exchequer he said, "They have shot my fox ". I thought that the right hon. Member for Grimsby was making that sort of complaint this afternoon.
The truth which is now coming out is that there has been a great deal of scare-mongering about the Bill. As the facts come to light over the next few months, I believe that we shall see what many of us have regularly argued, namely, that the degree to which rents will increase —I acknowledge that they will increase in most cases has been greatly exaggerated by the Opposition.
All that stuff about the famous "purloined document" is an example. The Opposition set up the great Aunt Sally of that famous document, but they have now suddenly decided that that Aunt Sally has been taken away. That document was introduced into our debates and was hammered away at by members of the Opposititon. It was their Aunt Sally and their creation. It was a Government working document, but it was never designed to act as a formal statement of what rents would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must recognise that that document was exploited by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). It was not, as I understand it, the Government's formal statement of what rents would be, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction confirms this.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: May I remind my hon. Friend and those who were not present during our debates in Committee that the point was made time and again by Ministers that that document was based on an extremely narrow —0[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) shaking his head and behaving like that. He must have been asleep at the time. It was made clear that the document was not to be taken seriously because it was based on a very narrow assessment of the number of houses affected.

Mr. Raison: I can only confirm what my hon. Friend says.
In yesterday'sObserverProfessor Alan Day, who I think I am right in saying is not by any means a Conservative. wrote an article headed—
 Truth about fair rents ".
In the course of the article the Professor argues first that
 fair rents in the private sector
are at a level
 far below the 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. discount on market rents which is commonly quoted…any tenant who rents his home at a fair rent, assessed on such a basis. is heavily subsidised.
Professor Day then turn to council tenancies and says this:
…the limited researches I have been able to carry out indicate that at least some authorities are suggesting rents which are remarkably high relative to the private sector. My own borough of Camden, which was quoted by Mr. Crosland in the debate, is suggesting fair rentals—particularly of the newer property— will be markedly higher per square foot than nearby private property. And the London committee's assessments appear predominantly to be determined by the square footage.
So it seems quite likely that if consistency is achieved with privately owned rented property many of the figures now being quoted are unnecessarily high. In turn this implies that in relation to market rents all council tenants (and not merely those whose incomes are sufficiently modest to justify rent allowances) will continue to enjoy very substantial subsidies.
In other words, according to Professor Day, who has studied the position in the Borough of Camden, a borough which was frequently referred to in Committee, the indication is that there is alarmism and the Camden Borough Council by implication is deliberately trying to create


a picture of high rents which is not justified. I do not propose to go in detail into the argument about fair rents, because I tried to cover this ground in my intervention last Thursday.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman in Aylesbury any three-roomed flats at £7·70 net rent, which is a current rent in my constituency?

Mr. Raison: The short answer is that we have not in the council sector. Anybody must recognise that circumstances vary greatly between one area and another. I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, bcause I do not know enough about it.
I recognise that, overall, rents will rise. Rents have persistently risen. They rose by 75 per cent. under Labour. There has been a long term trend in that direction. This is an inevitable concomitant of the inflationary society we live in. I accept also that private ownership is, and will continue to be, relatively increasingly attractive. I accept that it is an overall part of our policy, as it has been an implicit part of previous policies, to do all we can to encourage people to own their own homes. I acknowledge that, for example, there is the tax relief available to those who buy their own homes. I believe that this is entirely right.
Local authorities which go out of their way to obstruct the sale of council houses will win for themselves a great deal of unpopularity, because they will deprive people of something they badly want such local authorities will land themselves in the position of King Canute.
It is true that home ownership imposes fairly heavy burdens. The cost of buying a house, as we know only too well, is very high. I am confident that my right hon. Friend's measures will do something to alleviate this, but I do not pretend that we shall see a dramatic fall in the cost of buying private houses. It is a heavy burden when repair and maintenance costs are added.
Nevertheless, home ownership has considerable advantages of a social nature for those who are lucky enough to own their own homes. It is a form of saving. Undoubtedly this has much to do with the present surge. People feel that if they put their money into property they

are putting it somewhere where they are sure it will be reasonably safe. Another important argument in favour of home ownership is that it gives people greater independence and greater say over the way in which they lead their lives.
Arguments in favour of home ownership in terms of the sense of freedom, the feeling that people are not tied men in this respect, are of great importance. Therefore, I believe that the policy of doing all we can to encourage people to own their own homes is entirely right. It reduces peoples' dependence on officialdom. It gives them a greater chance to determine the shape of their own lives within their own environment.
Everybody knows that even it we accept this, council housing has got a continuing role. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. I also accept that it can be provided in a reasonably humane and enlightened manner. In my own constituency the quality and the general attractiveness of the new council housing going up at the moment is pretty good. They are quite pleasant places to live in.
Nevertheless, in the long term we cannot avoid the fact that council housing is prone to certain drawbacks. First, it is at the whim of national politics and national politicians. This is an indictment of ourselves, on whichever side of the House we may be, but the fact is that this is an area where, if it is run by politics, it will be subject to all sorts of changes of policy from time to time, and I do not believe this is necessarily desirable.
Secondly, council housing is prone to the paternalism which is so often a feature of local government. It is not an absolutely inevitable feature, but the truth is that local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative, tend to a sort of paternalism. They tend to look on the people who live in council houses and in the public sector of housing in a way which makes a division between the providers and the recipients, so to speak, and this is not a desirable pattern.
Thirdly, council housing is particularly subject to the dogmas, self-indulgence and occasional self-glorification or architects. We have had a lot of talk during the last year or two about the social evils of high rise housing, and I believe those social evils exist. I tried to find a


way of introducing a Clause into the Bill to prevent subsidies going to authorities who put up high rise housing, but it is a concomitant of subsidies which are attached to people rather than to buildings that such a Clause is difficult to attain, which I regret.
We know that high rise housing is wrong. Yet several years after Ronan Point and after people had come to recognise that it is inhumane to stuff people 20 floors up, these buildings are still going up. When coming into London on the M40, as I do, at a point where an interchange goes to Shepherds Bush, one is confronted with a vista of new and impossibly inhumane blocks of flats still in process of erection. One has seen references to the particularly horrific form of existence which is being perpetrated in Southwark, in an estate which unhappily bears the name of the Aylesbury Estate.
There is something about local authrities which encourages them to think in terms of mass housing. Of course, there has been a great need for mass housing. The fact that there has been mass slumdom and mass need, has led to some sort of mass housing. People have had to respond in a big way. But they have responded in an unnecessarily inhumane way, and in the future we should he in a position in which the response can be much more individual and personal, which I would associate with private property and home ownership rather than with what happens in local authorities —and even sometimes among the more enlightened ones.
I and I am sure my party as a whole have no bias against council tenants. How could we, since we depend upon them to help us win elections, and more important we know them as our own constituents. When one gets to know one's constituents at one's "surgery" and so forth, one is bound to like them. This seems to me to be one of the happier aspects of politics. We have no bias against council tenants, but some of us have a bias against council housing as such. A policy which encourages people more and more to acquire their own homes is a policy which should he supported.
I should now like to say a word or two about the public expenditure aspect which has been referred to by a previous

speaker and which the right hon. Member for Grimsby has talked about in the course of our Committee deliberations. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is almost purely a public expenditure exercise. In saying that, I am not doing him an injustice even if I did him an injustice before. The answer to that is that to a degree this is manifestly untrue. There are very large elements of this which are to do with more public money on rent allowances, a national rent rebate scheme, slum clearance subsidies and so on. But I acknowledge that in the long term it is one of the ingredients in the Bill to peg the subsidy level. The Bill does not cut subsidies, as hon. Members opposite say it does, but it contains the increase which would otherwise have taken place. So to that extent I acknowledge that there is a public expenditure aspect.
However, we should ask ourselves whether it is a bad thing to try to control public expenditure. At the moment the Government seem to spend a great deal of energy, and I think wisely, on finding new ways of spending money. Not many days pass, including Budget Days, when we do not see substantial new developments in terms of money being made available for a variety of different projects. But these additional sums of money seem to me to be characterised by two things.
First, they are largely devoted to alleviating the cruel problem of unemployment. The priority at the moment unquestionably in additional Government spending is to try to bring down the level of unemployment, and that is a wholly admirable and sensible priority. Secondly, they are trying to introduce an additional stimulus to industry. That is also a wholly admirable and sensible priority.
These things are in a sense very immediate policies. Trying to get the unemployment figure down as soon as possible and getting industry on the march as soon as possible have a direct relevance to the problems of today. When we talk about creating a new system of financing housing in the country we are not only talking about what will happen in 1972 and 1973. We are talking in the long term. We have, in other words, to erect a system which will make sense this year, next year, 10 years time and so on. When we take the longer perspective, we


can see that it makes sense to think in terms of an allocation of priorities between different branches of public expenditure. I like to think that this is what has been going on.
It is a matter for my right hon. Friends to decide where one can expect the sort of high rate of growth in the social services and the allied fields, where one can expect this to continue and where one can reasonably try to contain and restrain that. Looking at the broad picture of social policy, I can see areas where I would argue that there is a need for substantially greater spending. I would be glad to see the introduction of preschool education on a wide scale. That is a high priority. In health there are some very great needs. The treatment of the disabled, on which we make a great deal of headway but where there is a need to do much more, is a good example. A reduction in the length of waiting lists in hospitals is another example. These are areas where we need to spend more money, and one can find other areas of this sort.
However, we must be realistic. If we are going to spend more money on preschool education, on cutting hospital waiting lists and providing suitable accommodation for old people or for the mentally disabled away from the traditional long-term institutions, we must ask ourselves where this money is coming from. As I have argued before, I think that in the long-term political job of saying where lines should be drawn between the social sphere and the economic sphere, it is reasonable to say that for the wage earner with a reasonable wage and with reasonable prospects, housing should be placed in the economic sphere rather than in the social sphere.
This is one of the areas in which, so to speak, the frontiers should be shifted a little in the direction of the private sector and away from the public sector. Long-term retirement pension provision is another example. Our strategy for pensions implies, I believe, that we shall, over the years, see more of the provision for old age borne by occupational pension schemes and less by the State.
Clearly, there will be enormous needs to be met and jobs to be financed out of the Exchequer. To my mind a policy which takes the view that this particular

area, housing, is one in which we can look forward to some sort of containment of the growth in public expenditure, unlike certain others, is a policy which makes long-term sense. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for Grimsby says that this is a public expenditure Bill, my answer is that there is nothing to be ashamed of in that.
I acknowledge that this is a controversial Bill which arouses, and has aroused, genuinely strong feelings on the part of many people. I do not dispute that. But I am sure that, with time, a great deal of the froth and highly exaggerated argument of the last few months will fall away, and the Bill will be seen in true perspective as a strongly positive contribution to the country's general welfare.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) on doing, probably, the best demolition job on any Minister which it has been my privilege to witness since becoming a Member of Parliament. Until such time as we have answers from the Minister to the questions which my right hon. Friend put, the debate will virtually remain in a vacuum. We do not know what the fair rent assessment is likely to be. Will it be on the basis of the document, the so-called purloined document? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) to say now that it was based on a narrow point. It was a Government assessment.

Mr. Tebbit: I always did say that.

Mr. Mitchell: It was a Government assessment, by a working party, which gave £6·50 a week as the average rent for the South-East. Why should the Government be surprised if we use that document as a basis for our propaganda and our talk about the Bill?
Now, however, Birmingham has come up with a document, and, aparently, the Minister accepts it. If the Birmingham figures for assessing fair rents are right. what will be the position in Southampton? The general rent level in Southampton is higher than it is in Birmingham. In July this year, under the present proposal, there is to be a rent increase of


78p for every tenant in Southampton. But if the Birmingham figures are right. it should be not 78p but something much lower.
I hope that we can have a firm answer from the Minister tonight on that question, because many local authorities will want to know what their position is. I should like to be able to go back to Southampton and say, "You need not worry. The 78p need be only 25p." But I do not know whether I can say that until the Minister has given an answer. We must have a definite response from him tonight.
There are many features of the Bill which make it a bad Bill, but I shall refer to only half a dozen. The greatest need at the moment is to build more houses for homeless families. That is the over-riding need, yet there is nothing in the Bill which will produce one more house. In fact, many experts consider that the new subsidy arrangements will be a disincentive to local authorities to build for general housing need.
Many local authorities—Southampton is one of them—have growing waiting lists. For the last three or four years, as an unfortunate result of the policy of my local Conservative council which took control in 1967, our housing programme has been cut from over 1,000 a year to a few hundred a year, and we now have a higher waiting list than we had in 1967. But, as I say, there is nothing in the Bill to provide any incentive to a local authority to build more council houses.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was probably right when he implied that one of the main aims of the Bill is, in a sense, to force more people on to the house purchase market. He would use the word "encourage ", but I should probably say "force ". I have no objection to owner-occupation. I have no objection to the sale of council houses, provided that the authority which sells them is building sufficient for those in genuine need who cannot afford to buy.
In Southern England, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury well knows, we have a rapidly inflationary house price spiral. it seems silly at this time to increase the demand for house purchase by forcing more people out on to the market, for the net result must surely he to make

the inflationary spiral even worse. There could, perhaps, be an argument about doing it at another point in time, but at this moment it is plainly a bad thing to do.
My third objection is that the rent increases to be paid by the vast majority of people will be quite unnecessary. Again, I take the position of my own local authority. We have a large surplus, over £300,000, on the housing revenue account. There was no need this year, and probably even next year, too, to make any increase in council house rents, which are already high. But now, under the Bill, the rent increases which my local authority will be compelled to make will mean adding to the general inflationary spiral in the country.
Obviously, the workers, through their trade unions, will put in larger wage and salary claims to meet the higher rents which they will have to pay. They will not sit back and take a reduced standard of living, which is what it would otherwise mean. It is all very well to say that people can afford it. What it comes to is that some people, as a result of paying an extra £1 or £2 a week, will have to accept a reduced standard of living. It is human nature not to sit back and accept that. They will put in extra wage claims, and the claims will be even higher than they are at the moment, adding to the general inflation.
My fourth objection is to the system of rent rebates applying to about 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of all council tenants. I do not object to rent rebates —we have had them in Southampton for some years—but I have always considered that a rent rebate should be aimed at that section of the population, perhaps 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., who are genuinely in need. A rent rebate applying to 60 or 70 per cent., with all the form-filling entailed, and all the lack of take-up such as we have seen in other means-tested benefit schemes, will merely add to bureaucracy. It will create a new bureaucratic machine quite unnecessarily, and create bad feeling between one tenant and another.
Even worse, perhaps, is that it will accentuate what has become known as the wage trap. We all know now that within certain ranges of income, because there are so many means-tested benefits, a man may have a £2 a week pay increase


and find himself worse off at the end of the day. This new rent rebate scheme will make matters even worse, and the result will again be that wage claims are higher. It is no good a man asking for a few pounds a week if, at the end of the day, he will be worse off.
Much Conservative propaganda in my area has made great play of the argument that some people will have a nil rent; they will not pay any rent at all. We have been told about that as though it were something miraculous. But what is the Minister's estimate of the number of those people paying a nil rent who do not already have their rent paid through social security?
The Bill transfers the alleviation of poverty over a considerable range from the general taxpayer and the social security system, where it should be, to the other council tenants. I object very strongly to one council tenant being responsible for another council tenant's rate rebate. Under the Bill he is responsible even for the private tenant's rent allowance, and the only good thing about the Bill is the introduction of the rent allowance. It is quite wrong that the rent allowance should be financed by the council tenant's rent. I hope we shall eventually have a negative income tax system which will eliminate all the old means-tested benefits.
My final objection is that the Bill removes from the local elected council power which it then transfers, we think, into the hands of a Government-appointed rent scrutiny board. We are not sure about this, because it may be transferred into the Minister's hands, but we shall no doubt find this out when he replies to the debate tonight. Contrary to what is promised in all the Conservative manifestos the Bill takes away from local authorities the right to fix their own rent levels in their own areas. We have seen the power of local authorities whittled away in many other matters, such as local government reform.
I could raise many other points which would illustrate how bad the Bill is, but I know that others wish to speak. I urge the House, even at this stage, to reject the Bill.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: For many generations both at Westmin-

ster and in the town halls housing has been one of the most emotive issues to be discussed. I am simply yearning for the day when housing is taken out of the political arena. Both sides of the House make political capital out of the deplorable housing situation when they are in office and I am not satisfied that any Government have been successful in dealing with the matter. They have been far from successful, and I hope that the Government will not be complacent when the Bill is on the Statute Book. It resolves only one aspect of housing. The provision of homes is the most critical problem and perhaps by the end of the decade, with positive action by the Government—much more positive than they have taken so far—we shall be able to build sufficient houses to provide consumer choice. When that situation is reached, and only then, we will have stability in housing costs.
This is one of the problems to which we must apply ourselves much more diligently when the Bill becomes law than we have done so far. I should like to look at the principles underlying our objective in the Bill. The White Paper clearly stated that our objectives were to provide
 a decent home for every family at a price within their means.
No one would want to quarrel with that Another objective was to achieve
 fairness between one citizen and another in giving and receiving help towards housing costs.
At every party conference housing has been debated. Certainly at the party conferences I have attended there has been a great deal of criticism about unfairness in housing. Examples have been quoted of people receiving subsidies who do not need them and of those who need them not obtaining them. There has been a spontaneous demand by the rank and file at our party conferences that something should be done to deal with the problem, and the Government have reacted to the pressures that have been put upon them by people from constituencies all over the country.
Since the war houses built by municipal authorities have mainly been allocated on the basis of physical need and not of financial need. That has encouraged people to apply for council houses because they could not get a home


as insufficient houses were being built. The result was that many people occupied council homes and paid a subsidised rent because the subsidy related to the bricks and mortar and not to the means of those occupying the house. It was not surprising therefore that tenants obtained houses on the cheap and it was not surprising that waiting lists could not be reduced. It was always an attractive proposition to some people who did not regard housing as the most important thing in their lives to apply for a council house which was inevitably cheaper than a privately-owned house.

Mr. George Cunningham: No.

Mr. Owen: The hon. Member is wrong. The result was that irrespective of incomes rents were fixed at well below what could be regarded as the market price. I have never been able to understand why hon. Members opposite should want lower rents irrespective of the tenant's income, leaving themselves with insufficient resources to provide for the really needy.
It is more important to provide homes for those in the low income levels and this is what the Bill seeks to provide. I cannot understand why hon. Members on the Opposition side assume that a man should not be prepared to pay as large a percentage of his earnings for his house as he would for a motor car. I do not decry those with motor cars, but I am surprised that someone should be prepared to allocate 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of his income to run a motor car and yet object to paying 15 per cent. of his income for a home.
Hon. Members on both sides have said how important a home is socially. It is the most important social objective for the people. I do not deny that hon. Members on the Opposition side are sincere in their objective of ensuring that everyone gets a home, but the person who occupies a home should be prepared to recognise its importance. Why should he relegate its importance in his spending so that he allocates a lower proportion of his earnings on his home than on other less important items? Hon. Members opposite say that a person should not be expected to pay more than 10 per cent. of his income in rent. That is boloney.

Mr. George Cunningham: At the risk of being a bore, I must ask the hon.

Member to address himself to the point that we have asked him to deal with in other housing debates. If he bases his argument on fairness between one person and another in the community, how does he answer the charge that he is not achieving fairness as between the home owner and the council tenant? If the home owner borrows the money for his home, he receives an enormous subsidy by way of tax relief. The hon. Member must address himself to this point even if he does not agree with it.

Mr. Owen: I would not mind addressing myself to that point and I may come to it presently.
Let us deal with the question of home ownership. The average home owner is obliged to provide not much less than 25 per cent. of his weekly earnings for his mortgage repayments and interest. One month's repayments are equal to a week's salary. That is the building societies' criterion for repayments. The proportion of 25 per cent. is a pretty substantial sum of money. No one can say that the fair rent as proposed is anything like a market rent. In many instances it is 20 per cent. less than the market rent. There is a built-in subsidy even with the assessment of a fair rent.
Labour Members suggest that only 10 per cent. of a person's earnings should be allocated for rent. They do not recognise the importance of a home. Ordinary working people constitute 43 per cent. of the borrowers from building societies. They are prepared to recognise the importance of their home and to allocate 25 per cent. of their income to it.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: They have an appreciating asset.

Mr. Owen: It is a matter of priorities. The White Paper spoke of:
 a decent home for every family at a price within their means ".
If the house to be provided is not within their means, there is adequate provision in the Bill.
It is not surprising that people are protesting about the Bill. They are encouraged and the fires are stoked by Labour Members. When people have been getting something on the cheap almost from time immemorial they are bound to protest if they have to pay more for the same article. That


is human nature. But it does not alter the fact that there is a fair price for a house, for a home in which to bring up a family, which is the sheet anchor of everything that human society stands for—the home and everything about the home. Surely the occupiers of those homes must recognise them as a priority.
Many people do not regard the home as the most important thing in their lives. They prefer entertainment and the motor car, and the home is about the last thing they want to provide. But we consider that there is a fair and proper price to pay for a home. I am not suggesting that it should be 25 per cent. of income, which was what I had to provide out of my income when I bought my own home on a mortgage. I was prepared to recognise that it was important for me, and I paid 25 per cent. of my salary for a home for my wife and family. I do not expect a council house tenant to do that, but 10 per cent. is a much lower proportion than it should be.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how much subsidy he was then receiving in the form of tax relief?

Mr. Owen: I was not receiving very much. Taxation in 1939 was considerably lower than it is today, and the amount of subsidy I was receiving was insignificant. It is only since we have had the postwar Labour high-taxation policy that we have been obliged to use the device of tax-saving.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman keeps on comparing 25 per cent. with 10 per cent. They are not comparable figures. The 25 per cent. includes a very large element of saving, which results in a capital asset being possessed. The right comparison is between the 10 per cent. paid out in rent and that part of the mortgage payments which represents interest and not capital repayments.

Mr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the ablest men on the Opposition Front Bench, must know that the repayment factor is minute over 25 years. An owner-occupier is paying hard interest from the very beginning, and the repayment element is negligible until after 10 years. It certainly would not make up the difference between 25 per cent. of

his income and the 10 per cent. suggested by Labour Members. They suggest that a man earning £30 a week should not pay more than £3 a week rent. I do not know how they have established that figure.
It is suggested only because council house tenants have been experiencing cheap rentals for a very long time. Labour Members are not suggesting that clothes. or food should be subsidised. Council house tenants are prepared to go into shops and buy food without saying "We live in a council house and therefore we should have cheaper food." They do not say when they go out for their enjoyment "We live in a council house, and therefore this must be subsidised." It is not suggested that suits for council house tenants should be subsidised. Why single out the house to be specially subsidised. irrespective of the tenant's income? As my hon Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has said, there must be some degree of selectivity in the provision of public welfare. Without it, the benefits will be spread far to thinly and never be of value to those who need them.

Mr. Cunningham: There is no selectivity at all on tax relief.

Mr. Owen: There has been a great deal of talk about rent increases as though they were never experienced under the Labour Government. We are predicting what fair rents will be between 1974 and 1975. There may be an average 50p increase over the years up to that time. The Opposition have ignored the fact that there will be corresponding wage increases over that period. No one can tell me that we are freezing wages in 1972 and there will never be more increases
On the basis of the now normal increase in wages, a man earning £25 a week now could be earning £36 a week in 1975. A percentage of that increase, even if it is only 15 per cent. would provide for £1.70 a week more rent, 12… per cent. would provide another £1.45 a week and 10 per cent. would provide another £1.15. Therefore, the total increase from the present rent to a fair rent over the next three years is not quite such a formidable obstacle for the working man as the Opposition try to make out. The kind of wage increase he will receive over the next four or five years must be taken into account.
As the housing construction programme gathers momentum as my right hon. and hon. Friends take even more positive steps than they have so far, which are not adequate, we shall witness a degree of consumer choice within the next five years. I do not think that beyond the end of the predicted fair rent period that in 1976 it will be necessary to increase rents considerably, because consumer choice will play a very important role in assessing rents in the future.

Mr. Cunningham: In London?

Mr. Owen?: Various hon. Members have accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of retreating on the subject of rents. He has never retreated at all. Labour hon. Members have been scaring the nation on the subject. We not only heard that rents would be doubled, but in my constituency they told us that rents would be trebled. Never once did the propagandists representing the Labour Party mention rebates or allowances. They went around the council housing estates asking "Do you realise that your rents will double and treble? "Now they realise that rents will not be trebled, and they are suggesting that my right hon. Friend is retreating. It is they who are retreating. The election is over and won, and therefore they can take a more honest rùle in the matter.
I sincerely trust that the Bill will be an unqualified success, that those entitled to rebates and allowances will receive them in full measure and that those who are expected to pay a reasonable rent will pay a reasonable rent. I should like to see this Bill as one of the greatest success stories of all time.
I believe that the Bill will be far more successful that the "weary Willy" predictions of hon. Members opposite would have us believe. But, of course, no one would be more disappointed than hon. Members opposite should it be a success. One has only to sit here on Budget day and watch their expressions when the Government are offering more provision for the people to recognise how disappointed they are when, for example, they hear about increased pensions. We on this side of the House noticed, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the great concessions in the Budget, how the jaws of hon. Members opposite dropped. I

readily predict that no one will be as unhappy as hon. Members opposite if the Bill should be a humdinger of a success. They do not want it to be a success. They would like to be able to cry "Woe, woe, woe" so that they could go on worshipping at the council house shrine which is their sacred cow.
One has only to canvass on council estates before or behind members of the Labour Party to find out the sort of things they say. At the last General Election, I had evidence. They were telling people on the council estates "If you want to stop your rent going up, vote for us ". They made no qualifications or conditions. But even so they were worried that council tenants would not make enough noise about it. They sent out frantic leaflets and called a mass rally. Altogether, 9,000 leaflets went out to 9,000 families urging them to attend a mass rally in the town hall. It was addressed by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). There was a fanfare of trumpets throughout the town. The rally was emblazoned on poster sites all over the town. The posters called the Bill "vicious ". Two hundred and fifty out of a population of 150,000 turned out at the rally. That was the excitement that all this effort had generated. Now, as time goes on, hon. Members opposite say that the Government have retreated because rents are not going as high as they should have done.
I have spent a lifetime in my professional life and in local government and national politics dealing with housing, and I say that the present Government are showing more compassion in housing than any other Government this century.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) was born in the Principality and has been an ex-patriate for many years. I was shocked to realise that he had forgotten the lessons of his early childhood when he said that not many people regard homes as their first priority. I refute that in its entirety. A home is the first and most prized possession of the people I was born amongst in Scotland, and I know that in Wales, where I have lived for many years, it is the first and most prized possession of the people there.
The hon. Member talked about the measures proposed in the Budget. My commentary on that is merely, "falling investment and more than one million unemployed ". In this day and age, no one can expect that any politician or political party can fool all the British people all of the time, and when the hon. Gentleman talks about Stockport, as he is entitled so to do, I wonder how his party fared in the local elections. We are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill against the backcloth of the massive rejection of Tory philosophy in the Bill by the people of England and Wales. No explanations by the Tory Party can alter the fact that it has lost over 1,400 seats. Someone has said to me that figures can lie and liars can figure, and there may be a great deal of truth in that. But we won the seats, and the Conservatives lost them. There is no middle course there.
The Secretary of State for Wales is sitting here. He knows as I do that the Conservative Party was decimated at the local elections. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North knows, I have never been afraid to make a charge, and I am speaking here in the presence of the voice of Wales in the Cabinet, of a man who abdicated from his responsibilities and refused to take a place in the Standing Committee on the Bill. No one can excuse that; I do not, and I level the charge, and level it fairly. In the language of the profession which the Secretary of State for Wales adorns, he knows my charges to be a true bill, because we were singularly bereft of legal assistance in the Committee. The then Under-Secretary of State carried the load. Not even the most charitable could say that the Minister for Housing and Construction was an asset to the Committee.
In Wales, 11·2 per cent. of the weekly wage income is paid in rent, and that is a high enough proportion to pay for any house as rented property. I give the Minister a chance to refute that view if he thinks otherwise. The Bill will add a multitude of means test forms and an inevitable further complex to local government for the assessment and review of rebate claims. The Tory newspaper, theWestern Mail,said on 18th April that Cardiff expects applications at the rate

of 60 per cent. of the city's 25,000 housing revenue account tenants and that the new staff recruited prior to the passing of the Bill into law—and we do not know how many will be required after that—would total nine, at a cost of £12,500. One rent officer in Wales will cost £5,500. There are the people needed and administrative costs to be met even before the Bill becomes law. A total of 1,350 officials will be needed in the country as a whole, nearly all paid for by the local authorities.
One can get some idea of the number of people required to administer the Bill from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It has 20,000 staff making 2 million payments each week. Were 2 million people to apply for rent rebate. the financial cost to local authorities, including Swansea, would be tremendous. That cannot be refuted. It has been estimated that one in 12 persons in the United Kingdom are dependent on meanstested benefits. The dependence ratio in relation to these benefits in Wales is much higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is without the additional application forms needed for a rent rebate scheme.
The Bill will rob local authorities in Wales—the Minister has not defended this, and I charge him with it—of surpluses in well-managed housing accounts. Swansea has been well managed by Labour for over 40 years. It has one of the largest Labour municipal majorities in Wales. Swansea's housing administration has been universally acclaimed by political opponents to be excellent and to be fulfilling all the tenets of good business. But the Bill negates good business by taking away the surpluses built up in Wales, which, compared with the rest of the country, is a low wage area. One finds low wages and low rents going together with falling interest rates to create a surplus. But the surpluses are to be taken by the Government through the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has descended to us from the Olympian heights today and in a crassly rotten speech gave us no indication of his thinking.
These surpluses will be taken away, and if the housing allowance is paid, local authorities will receive half back while the other half will be used for the


redemption of anything, including the national debt. Has the Secretary of State, following the undertaking given in Committee, decided whether the multiple of £30, which is to be multiplied by the number of houses in the housing revenue account to determine the surplus and the balance to be held in the housing revenue account, is to be increased to the multiple of £50, as suggested in Committee?
We are faced with one of life's political ironies. The Secretary of State with exclusive responsibility for housing in Wales is the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Prime Minister says there is not the slightest gap in liaison, no hiatus, but I leave it to the House to judge. In Swansea, the example I know best, there are 17,500 houses on the housing revenue account. A multiple of £30 will define the balance which this rotten Bill permits Swansea Council to retain—£515,000. Any figure in excess of that will be taken by the Government in legalised robbery. If the multiple was £50, that would provide £875,000 on 17,500 houses. The benefit of that must be plain. It would leave a reasonable margin for management contingencies, for reasonable amenities on estate, and for all the multifarious purposes to which that extra money could be applied.
It is ironical that we should attempt to teach business ethics and rules to the party of business. We are faced by a party of mediocrity, appallingly low in standard. The Prime Minister is a grey, colourless nonetity. That description may be shared by his Ministers. The Birmingham increase of 35 per cent., an amount which has not been denied—

Mr. Sydney Chapman: On a point of correction—

Mr. McBride: I will not give way; I have nearly finished my speech.
It has been mentioned that the Birmingham increase will be 35p and that that figure is likely to be approved. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this figure will apply to the Welsh cities?
The rents in Swansea are high enough. The present level is fair. I voice sincerely the views of the people who sent me here and among whom I live.

Mr. James Allason: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that there is a difference of 90p between the average rent in Swansea and the average rent in Birmingham? Does not that make a difference?

Mr. McBride: I am not mentioning differences. I am asking whether the principle will apply in Swansea as in Birmingham.
Amendment No. 425 proposed that the figure of 10 per cent. of rents above the so-called fair rent level to be increased to the mandatory amount of £1 in October should be reduced to 2 per cent. In Swansea we have a non—pooling rent arrangement so that all housing estate rents vary. Will the council need to impose the full mandatory increase on all houses?
The Bill has one clear message. It is that the 270,000 local authority tenants in Wales will, to put it bluntly and brutally, see their rents go up. Local authorities in the Principality will be reduced in status and function.
I put it to the Secretary of State for Wales, who adorns the law, that the Bill is harshly, rigidly and legalistically drawn. It is a blatant attack on the working class of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. All hon. Gentlemen opposite are bound by the Tory Manifesto. To them it is politically holy writ. In it they say that there was no independence, discretion or freedom of manoeuvre for local authorities. This is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman subscribed to. In "A Better Tomorrow ", the Tory Manifesto, it is said:
 The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers. On many issues, particularly in education and housing, they have deliberately overridden the views of elected councillors.
We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted, and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities.
One has read Aesop's fables and now one reads the modern version by Heath.
The Bill fails in many ways. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is here because he can give us the benefit of his legal knowledge. Legal sanctions are written into the Bill and yet it is the inalienable right of the subject to appeal, a right which is violated if no


provision to appeal is vouchsafed to him. For offences described in Clause 57, a tenant may be fined up to £50 for failing to observe the terms, but there is no right of appeal.
Under Clause 94 any elected councillor or council officer is liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding £400. Again, there is no right of appeal. In Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933, there are the surcharges referred to. In Section 229 there is the appeals procedure with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be familiar. If the right of appeal is given here, it is un—British for the same right not to be given to the councillor, the council officer and the tenant. It is wrong that there should be no provision for setting aside the decision of a tribunal such as the rent scrutiny board. I ask that councillors and council officers should have the right to appeal.
In the absence of such safeguards the Government should accept my suggestion, based on common sense and the law as it applies to other matters. There is here a denial of legal and natural justice. The result could be a serious sense of disquiet between such boards, local authorities and tenants. Certainly, as an amateur student of the law, not being a qualified lawyer and not therefore being dogmatic but applying common sense, I can see the possibility of this serious effect. The social relations between local authorities of England and of Wales, part of which I am proud to represent, will be harmed by the lack of the right to appeal.
There is a bestowal of authoritarian powers on these boards, constituting them courts of administrative tribunals, consequent upon Clause 55. I make special reference to lines 31–33 of Clause 55. The rent scrutiny board does not need to have any regard whatever to any representations made to it about the provisional rent assessment submitted by the local authorities. We are dealing with 270,000 heads of households in Wales, 5… million people in the United Kingdom. Surely if there is any sense of justice in this authoritarian Government they should listen to my representations. The Government are wrong in law if on the one hand they say that appeal procedures are available in one direction with regard to the Bill and yet on three other occa-

sions they say that there is no appeal procedure. Surely we have departed from British justice, from the sense of fairness, of extending to the subject the natural justice which is his right?
These nominated boards make arbitrary and final assessments We will be advised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this because it is a legal and not a political point. He should consider making available to the tenant or anyone affected by the decision of an administrative tribunal the right to set aside that decision through the obtaining of an issue of order of certiorari—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Hear, hear.

Mr. McBride: —which means the setting aside of a verdict. If there is no right of appeal then surely in the name of justice, looking at it objectively, this should be given as of right to everyone in these islands. Their home is their castle. If they are held to have infringed the law, if they are affected by a court they should have the right of appeal through the issue of order ofcertiorari. The House should agree to the inclusion of such a safeguard, because this matter impinges on ministerial responsibility.
In Part V of the Bill there is a dangerous infringement of the right of the subject to obtain legal and natural justice. This is exacerbated by the vesting in the Secretary of State of absolute legal powers. If this is considered coldly it must be conceded that the tenants, half the population of the country, must have some right of appeal against such boards which are not publicly accountable and not elected.
Because of the close relationship between the Secretary of State and the rent scrutiny boards it is imperative to insert legal checks so that impartiality can be achieved, so that the local authority tenant may judge whether the decisions are acceptable. That is entirely right and just. The tenant may wish to dispute a decision at law through the issue of order ofcertiorarior prohibition. Both orders are simple. The decisions of magistrates' courts can be set aside by the first. Surely the boards are not setting themselves above the law? If this is persisted in Ministers are saying that such boards, with no public accountability and making decisions affecting


millions of tenants are to be above the law. It would enable the local authority tenant to feel that justice was his of right as a higher court could quash the decisions of this minor administrative tribunal.
The Minister should say something about this matter. He should consider the need to provide legal checks, thus achieving a sense of balance in relation to the activities of the rent scrutiny board. The decisions of magistrates' courts can be set aside by issue of order ofcertiorari.The rents scrutiny board is a more minor tribunal than a magistrates' court. By giving the power to review the decisions of a board a public service would be performed. I am sure that the Minister would not like to go down in history as the Minister who said that he did not accept that there should be legal checks or that justice should not be accorded to even the most humble of our subjects. All of us have the right to justice, and is the Government negate this right they will stand convicted of authoritarian government, disregarding the extension of a right which is admired the world over —the right of justice for the most humble of our people.
I have described the Bill as bad. The opposition to it in Wales is overwhelming. The Secretary of State for Wales knows that it is not news to him. I look forward to the day when the Labour Party returns to government and the number of Tory Members in Wales is reduced from the lucky seven. In Committee I spoke for my constituency. But I also spoke for the other 26 Labour Welsh Members. Wales is a Labour nation it always has been. There is no room in the Principality for Tories. I speak in the name of Wales when I say, "Throw out this Bill. It is as unwanted as this Government ".

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I do not wish to follow the line of thought of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). As a fellow member of the Standing Committee, I certainly recollect his claim to speak for 26 other Members. I also recollect that he said quite enough for 26 other Members. That is about all I can refer to in what has been another long reiteration of the same old points which were dealt with time and again in Committee.
There was much more interest in the points raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). He gave some odd figures. He spoke of 60 to 70 per cent. of people getting rebates as opposed to 10 per cent. in need. I accept that he probably did not say what he meant because clearly he was thinking of 60 to 70 per cent. of the 30 per cent. of people who are council house tenants—perhaps of the 50 per cent. who are tenants of any kind. But about 40 per cent. of local authority tenants are expected to qualify for rebates, and 40 per cent. of 30 per cent. is getting precious near to the 10 per cent. which he said was about right.
It is interesting to hear an hon. Member opposite these days suggesting that only 10 per cent. of the population are in need. I get the impression, when I listen to hon. Members opposite, that at least 50 per cent, of the people are in dire financial distress. Now we have a figure of 10 per cent. and I hope that the Opposition will remember it. The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the building of new homes. After the high hopes and low achievements of the last Government. I was surprised that he did.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was very rash. He slipped into military terminology. I am sure he did not mean to do so, but he brought to my mind some other military terminology, namely, that the task of housing the nation should be conducted like a military operation. That was part of the famous "promise not lightly given but pledge solemnly made "of the Leader of the Opposition. What has happened to it? The right hon. Member for Grimsby may wish to tell us what has happened to it. Apparently he does not wish to do so— and well he should not. Sitting where he is and noticing the rapidity with which right hon. Members opposite fall off their perches on the Opposition Front Bench. he is well advised not to say a word about it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Get on with the Bill. Stop all this nonsense.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order.

Mr. Tebbit: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyon: Mr. Lyon rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) gave way to the hon. Member for Islington, South—West (Mr. George Cunningham). If I was wrong. I call Mr. Tebbit.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are much more perceptive than hon. Members opposite and can even hear when I say that I will give way. although these days hon. Members opposite do not seem to want to take advantage of the opportunity.
For a long time in these debates—and I can understand it—we have had a club atmosphere. Only a few newcomers have taken part in this discussion on the Bill. I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) today. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got into the debate because he was always saying how much he regretted not being with us on the late nights in Committee. He could have come to listen to the debates but he never came very late at night—or, if he did, it was only occasionally.
Usually there is nothing new to be discussed on a Bill which reaches Third Reading, but from all the fuss and bother last week one might think that this Bill was a great exception. There was what one might call the Birmingham affair. We have always said the whole way through the passage of the Bill that if housing had been well managed. as Birmingham's housing has been for some years, the rises in rent would be modest. However. hon. Members opposite refused to believe us and would not accept what we said. Now they have suddenly realised that we might have been right.
Hon. Members opposite refused to believe the earlier figures and thought that Newcastle and the like were fantastic exceptions. Since more exceptions are possible, they still do not know what to do about it. Anybody can make a mistake, and certainly right hon. and hon. Members opposite are always at it. For many months they have risked causing grave and unnecessary distress. [Interruption.] They seem to think that that statement is funny. They may laugh when they think about the pamphlets they issued which threatened people with a doubling and trebling of their rents. They

now have to get themselves off the hook since they have to admit that what we said is right. They cannot at one moment play upon people's fears and then say how sorry they are that the rent rises are not bigger to justify their propaganda campaign. We have made clear that it has always been Labour councils which for many years pursued unrealistic rent policies which envisaged enormous rises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) shot my fox too today when he quoted the article by Professor Day who observed that in the borough of Camden the local council had adopted scaremongering tactics. It was certainly clear in Committee that claims were made about the shoving up of rents, and those concerned did not care how much distress was caused to people as long as they gained a few more votes. [Interruption.] They may not have been voting in Camden, but we all know how often the Camden figures were quoted in places which were voting last week. This was used as a further scaremongering tactic. as has always been the case with hon. Members opposite.
I see that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) has now joined us, and I would like to give him an opportunity to have a little say at this stage. He had some rash words to say last Thursday. He went so far as to say that he could quote the housing figures and the amount of profit which would he made in the constituencies of nearly all those who were members of the Committee. Perhaps he did not bother to look at my constituency, but I should like to give him the chance to do so. I want him to reply without any shilly-shallying or wriggling. I should like all the figures, not some of them. No doubt the hon. Member has the figures for Harlow Urban District Council, Harlow Development Corporation, Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council, Epping and Ongar Rural District Council, Epping Urban District Council and the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Perhaps I have just made a case for local government reform rather than for anything else, but if the hon. Gentleman does not have those figures I shall gladly give them to him.

Mr. Freeson: I can select one, and I shall be taking part in the debate a little


later this evening, if I have the opportunity to do so. One set of figures which is in my mind relates to Waltham Forest, which is subject to the new subsidy system proposed by the Government. On the present system it now has a deficit of about £350,000 on the rates. By the third year of the new rent system, with the operation of the fair rent provision, this will produce an additional income of about £500,000 a year as compared with that £350,000 deficit which the borough now takes on its rates.

Mr. Tebbit: I notice that the hon. Gentleman chose one authority out of half a dozen, and it was not the biggest by a good margin. There are 20,000 houses in public ownership in the Harlow Development Corporation, and the hon. Gentleman said nothing about that. He has dealt with the figures in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. He can make up figures, but he cannot have the figures for the London Borough of Waltham Forest because that is one of the boroughs whose Labour council has decided not to implement the provisions of the Bill. It has not assessed fair rents in relation to the Bill and therefore the hon. Gentleman is making up another set of fairy tales tonight. Will he tell me where he gets his fair rent figures from? I am afraid that once again the hon. Gentleman is rather quicker with his mouth than with his brain. He would have done well to have remained seated and made sure of his facts before intervening.
There is another matter relating to the London Borough of Waltham Forest about which the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to talk, and I hope he will. It is not the subject of rents, because no one can know what the rents are as they have not been assessed. The hon. Gentleman can talk to us about what advice he will give his Labour colleagues on that council over their opposition to the Bill. In that borough, led as ever from the rear, the local Labour Party has decided that it will not implement the Bill. I want to hear what the Opposition spokesman will advise his friends there—[Interruption.] The Minister is implementing the Bill as we always expected it to be implemented. It is no good the hon. Gentleman just sitting there. Can he answer that question?
What will be the advice of the Opposition Front Bench to those in Waltham Forest who have decided to defy the Bill and break the law? Will right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite tell them that they are wrong to do that, or will they tell them that they are right in what they are doing? Perhaps we can have several interventions at this stage, because we have had several different versions. There is the Grimsby theory, there is the Willesden theory, there is the Salford. East theory and there is the Bolsover theory. At least we know what the Bolsover theory is—break the law and to hell with it. It is a straightforward approach. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) advocates breaking the law.
The point is, what will the hon. Gentleman advocate? Will he write to his colleagues and tell them to break the law, or not?

Mr. McBride: On a point of order. I submit that it is an abuse of the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suggest that anyone should express an opinion about breaking a law which has not yet been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Nothing that has been said so far is against the rules of the House.

Mr. Tebbit: If what I have said causes offence, I shall put the question in a different way. In the event of the Bill becoming law and the Labour group on the Waltham Forest Council continuing to say that it will not implement the Act and thus becoming in breach of the law, what advice will Opposition spokesmen give that group'? Or will they just sit there with their heads hanging down and give no advice? Nobody having intervened, I presume that the answer is "None ".

Mr. Crosland: I spoke at some length on this subject in Standing Committee. I should now amend my advice and say "Follow the example of Sir Francis Griffin ".

Mr. Tebbit: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to stop what may be described as his deviations round the point at issue and say whether he will advise the Labour group on the Waltham Forest Council to implement


the Bill when it becomes an Act, or not? There is no answer to the eternal question that is put to the Opposition: do they believe in law or in anarchy?
There is a question to which my right hon. Friend must give consideration. What will be the fate of the Justices of the Peace in the borough who have voted to defy the law? I trust they will not be allowed to continue to sit on the bench.
It is no good claiming, as hon. Gentlemen opposite did on Thursday night, that the Bill has the full-hearted dissent of the people of Liverpool because of a majority in a poll of about 50 per cent. or 30 per cent. If that is full-hearted dissent, then, whoopee, we have it made whenever we want to claim full-hearted assent for anything.
The Bill before us tonight has the same main aims as it had when it received its First Reading. One purpose is to rationalise rents and bring public and private sector rents throughout the country on to a comparable and similar basis. I take it that no hon. Gentleman objects to that. The Bill also has the aim of rationalising rebates and allowances throughout the country, and I take it that no right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite objects to that either. Indeed, they issued circulars asking people to do it but did nothing when their circulars were ignored.
For the first time rebates of this kind will be extended to the privately rented sector. By the time the Bill returns from the other place it may contain provisions for rebates in the furnished sector. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made strong demands for this to be done. When they had an opportunity to do it they said the difficulties were too great. Now we have in power an Administration which, on this as on other important matters, has the will to overcome the difficulties which defeated the Labour Government. The Bill will bring more help to the worse off, both individuals and areas.
Argument has raged about the Bill between hon. Members on both sides for over half a year. Throughout this time I have supported the Bill while hon. Gentlemen opposite have opposed it. The argument will not end tonight or for some years to come. We have waited for a long time to know the housing policy of

the Labour Party but always we have been told "It will be made known shortly ". Talk about the dance of the seven veils; this has been the dance of the seven years while we have been waiting for Labour's housing policy to arrive [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Grimsby said he would repeal the whole of the Bill. Then he said that he would reenact the good parts of it and scrap what he described as the bad bits. He did not tell the Committee which parts he would re-enact, though I find in theLocal Government Chronicleof 5th May an interesting speculation. This reasonably non-partisan publication, which was quoted by hon. Members on both sides in Committee throughout the deliberations on the Bill, contained a journalist's impression
 of Reg Freeson's rather equivocal statement on Labour housing policy is that the party is gradually hacking away from its pledge to revoke the Housing Finance Bill. Mr. Crosland made the threat as Shadow Secretary of State but Reginald Freeson, the Shadow Minister. now says that there are more important things to be done by an incoming Labour Government. It is to be welcomed that Mr. Freeson made the party's housing policy clear.…
That would certainly be welcomed. The article went on:
…apart from on the Bill. I also welcome the cooling off on the Bill because it may discourage those councils who are at present considering defying the Government.

Mr. Freeson: I was on the telephone to the journalist in question this morning soon after I read that article, and he has undertaken to print a correction next week.

Mr. Tebbit: I am looking forward to reading the rest of the saga next week. I hope the hon. Gentleman told the journalist which parts of the Bill will be repealed or whether the Measure will be repealed in its entirety. We look forward to discovering, after all these years, Labour's policy on housing—and it took three paragraphs in theLocal Government Chronicleto get it. What a victory for journalism! I will make sure of getting my copy next week. The housing policy of the Labour Party has been made clear in a telephone call. I hope it will extend to more than three paragraphs.

Mr. Frank Marsden: Get on with it.

Mr. Tebbit: That is strange advice coming from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marsden: I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must not speak from a seated position, whether or not he knows what he is talking about.
It is clear that we are to be denied an authoritative statement from the Labour Party on what they intend to place in the stead of this Bill, when or if they repeal it—and, of course, if or when they become the Government. We await with interest next week's Local Government Chronicle.
Presumably, it would be vain of us to say that those who are not prepared to state what their policy would be in relation to these matters, if they were to form a Government, have no right to vote on the Bill. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman opposite find it amusing. But it is tragic that they can sit there waiting for next week's Local Government Chronicleto know what the policy of their party is and yet know that they will vote against a policy which is here on the Table tonight. That is not funny; it is tragic. I am sure that the electorate will think it tragic tonight. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not know what their policy is, what they would do or which parts of the Bill they would re-enact after its repeal, if they ever have the chance, all they have the right to do at 11 o'clock tonight is to sit there, as ever, divided, irresolute, unknowing, waiting for the Local Government Chronicleof next week to tell them which Lobby to enter.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me so early in my membership of the House. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ray Gunter, who earned such a fine reputation here.
I should like to make a brief reference to my constituency, the historic Borough of Southwark. Perhaps it should be more than a borough. A borough with two cathedrals should be accorded the status and dignity of a city.
I was prompted to enter the debate by the reference of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to Southwark and what he called the mass housing, and the

suggestion that the Bill, which would encourage houses for sale, could in some way provide a solution to the housing problems of Southwark. The particular development to which the hon. Member was referring, the Aylesbury development, is a development at 130 to the acre. But the problems in areas such as Southwark are that we are at present engaged in clearing outworn tenement blocks which have been in private ownership for years and are a disgrace for people to live in. In one example, cleared within the last 12 months, people were living at a density of 600 to the acre. To suggest that a housing finance Bill which will encourage the provision of houses for sale will be any solution to the problems of the Southwarks and the Inner London area is a fantasy.
In my maiden speech I shall endeavour to be as uncontroversial as I can, but on such a subject as the Housing Finance Bill it will be rather difficult for me to do that. The suggestion that the encouragement to produce houses for sale will provide a solution to future housing needs has already been disproved. The tremendous escalation in housing prices over the past six months has been caused largely by the fact that many council tenants, seeing nothing but rent increases staring them in the face for years ahead, are entering the market for houses for sale, a market with already more would-be purchasers than sellers. All that we shall succeed in doing as a result of the Bill is to escalate the price of housing.
One can well understand the reason for this: the council tenant realising that if he becomes an owner occupier he will, every three years, or every year, or, at the present rate, every six months, have a tremendous capital appreciation, will see nothing in the future as a tenant but a rent appreciation. We are dividing our housing, as we are so many other things, into two classes. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) spoke of the advantage the rent rebate scheme will have for the less well off tenant, but my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) has already made the point that people who will benefit are those who merely transfer from social security. We have some evidence of how fair rent and rent rebates work, because we know what has happened in the three years during which the Greater


London Council has worked a rent rebate scheme.
It is interesting to note that in order to publicise the much vaunted fair rent and rent rebate scheme, a friend of the hon. Member for Epping asked the Greater London Council how many people in Southwark would benefit as a result of the generous rent rebate scheme which had been introduced together with fair rents. The figure given was 6,200. I thought that such a very interesting figure that it should be investigated further, so I asked how many of those 6,200 tenants in Southwark would not have needed rent rebate at all if the rents had not been put up under the fair rents scheme. The figure I was given was 3,000, so half of them would not have needed the rebate if the rents had not first been put up.
I also asked what was the net amount, more or less, that they would have received after the rent had gone up and they had received a rebate. I was told:
 It appears that the aggregate rent taken from the 6,200 likely to get rebates in October is roughly the same as the aggregate rents they are now paying.
So having done all that they finished up where they started from.
I thought that was interesting, so I waited another 18 months, because the figures I had been given were only estimated figures, and then I asked how many of the lucky 6,200 tenants in Southwark actually received a rent rebate. The answer was that there were 1,600
…but the earlier estimate was based on the assumption that the rents would be the fair rent level of 1967 and merely made reference to the fact that the previous Government intervened to stop them accelerating as fast as they otherwise would have done.
It is a very interesting exercise in rent rebates, and the House will be very concerned in 18 months' time to see in practice what is the effect of rent rebates and how many people actually benefit. I am certain that the whole object of this exercise is to get more rent from council tenants, and to place them in an entirely different category from others in the housing market.
The hon. Member for Epping asked whether a Labour Government would repeal this Measure. I am quite certain that the electors of Southwark who sent

me here last Thursday with such a magnificent majority, with the largest ever percentage poll in Southwark, will expect, as I do, a Labour Government to repeal it.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I count it a privilege to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, immediately after the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn). It is my privilege to welcome the hon. Gentleman and to congratulate him on his interesting and magnificent contribution. I have learned that the hon. Gentleman represents a twin-cathedralled constituency. 1 know that it is a very great part of a very great city. The hon. Gentleman spoke with clarity, conciseness, sincerity. and knowledge of a subject which is obviously at his command. We all greatly respected his predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman's future contributions are like the one he made this evening, he will come to be as great a man as his predecessor
This is a controversial Bill. It took a long time in Committee. I sometimes think that though the dusts of controversy and the mists of time some of the basic philosophy behind the introduction of the Bill has been forgotten. It is as if we cannot see the wood for the trees in all the controversy that has blown up.
My point of view is slightly different from that of most hon. Members. One of the basic problems in housing is what I call the rot of housing that took place during the last two or three decades and which is still taking place. Governments of both complexions since the war have increased the housing output, although both sides when in opposition have criticised the party then in power for not doing as much as the opposition party claimed it would do if it was in government.
Whilst we are building all the new houses, many other houses are going into obsolescence and many others are becoming slums. It is not just a question of trying to clear existing slums. By the time we have done that, new slums have to be cleared. Whether we talk about shortage, about overcrowded conditions in some areas or about obsolescence, some of the housing conditions that remain, particularly in our great cities, two of


which are represented, in part at any rate, by the hon. Member for Southwark and myself, are a scandal. This problem has defeated Governments of both complexions since the war.
We cannot excuse ourselves by saying that one of the main causes of the problem is the population explosion which nobody foresaw, least of all the Registrar-General. Nor can we excuse ourselves by saying we did not know that people would get married younger, have children earlier and want homes of their own earlier. Nor can we excuse ourselves by saying that, thanks to medical science, people now live longer and that this in itself causes a problem.
I do not think we can excuse ourselves by saying that it is not our fault and that it is because some parts of the country have had so many immigrants so quickly as to cause social problems and to hinder the solution of the housing problem. I believe sincerely that the main reason for the housing problem is that the system of financing housing is out of date, irrelevant and unfair. It is as if, on the one hand, when building houses we are pouring hot water into the bath and at the same time, with the obsolescence that is occurring, somebody is pulling the plug out.
One of the main criticisms of the existing system of financing housing which we shall face until the Bill gets on to the Statute Book is that the subsidies we have been giving have been indiscriminate in the sense that they have not necessarily been going to the families who need help most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, whether we are talking about education or hospitals or houses, obviously one can make a case for spending far more money on all these things, and yet we have to face the fact that we have limited resources with which to do so. We shall never spend as much as hon. Members on both sides of the House want to spend on housing. It therefore seems to me all the more important that we should ensure that the limited resources we have—and there may be some argument as to the exact amount —should go to those most in need.
Whether one is talking about housing or other social services, the flat-rate benefit of the Beveridge era, however good it was then—and it was a wonderful thing

then—however relevant it was to the 1940s and 1950s, became increasingly irrelevant in the 1960s and is even more irrelevant today. One could make the point—I do not want to be too emotive about it—that of the £220 million that we are spending on housing subsidies at the moment, perhaps only 10 per cent. is going to those families who most need help.
Whatever criticism can be made of the Bill, it has three points in particular that I welcome. It extends the rent rebate system and, of course, in relation to council house tenants it introduces the rent allowance system. Surely that cannot be a bad thing. Secondly it extends the principle of the fair rent, first introduced in the 1965 Act and extended in subsequent legislation.
Thirdly, it gets rid of some of the absurdities and anomalies which exist in our housing policy today as between one local authority and another on the one hand, and between one family and another on the other hand. The rationalisation of this system, provided that it is a fair rationalisation, is a good thing and therefore, if for no other reason, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: Following the principle which the hon. Gentleman is enunciating, may we take it that he will move an Amendment to the Finance Bill to restrict tax relief for owner-occupiers to those who are most in need?

Mr. Chapman: No, I shall not be moving any Amendments to the Finance Bill. After serving on the Committee on the Housing Finance Bill I shall be taking a slight rest. However, I take the hon. Member's point. I can see that he has a debating point, but I still stand by what I said. The existing system is full of unfairnesses, absurdities and anomalies, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
I will return to that point later if I have time and talk about the question of homes for owner-occupiers. However, since the hon. Gentleman has challenged me and obviously many hon. Members opposite will challenge me on other points concerning the Bill, I sometimes wonder whether some of the criticism that there has been of the Bill from people outside this House as well as from hon.


Members opposite arises from the fact that under the Bill some or most rents will go up. If that is the case, I think it is fair to make three points.
First, if the Bill does not get on to the Statute Book, in time all rents will go up in any case. That is a fact which has to be faced, and it is not sufficient to criticise the Bill because certain rents will go up. This is perhaps a debating point and I do not want to put too much stress on it, but if one needs any proof of what I have been saying I would point out that under the last Administration rents increased. They went up in six years by about 70 per cent. Under this new system as proposed in the Bill many rents will go up. but many will come down for families most in need.
I refer here—perhaps hon. Members are bored by this now—to the Birmingham figures. We all know that these figures—I accept that they still have to be confirmed suggest that certain rents will not go up at all and others will go up by not quite £I. The average is 35p. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) first gave the figure of 35 per cent.; in fact it is 35p.
Hon. Members opposite and their party supporters challenge those figures and have argued throughout that rents would necessarily double. I shall make one or two criticisms of the Bill in a minute or two, but I must stress the case from this side of the House that the likelihood and extent of an increase in rents has been, to say the least, grossly exaggerated.

Mr. Denis Howell: I know that the hon. Gentleman approaches these matters in a very fair-minded way. One of the reasons for our doubts about the Birmingham figures is that there is in Birmingham now, as there is elsewhere, a rent assessment committee which is already establishing fair rents in the private sector, and that rent assessment committee is fixing rents for accommodation comparable to municipal accommodation at figures far higher than those which the Minister and the Conservative chairman in Birmingham have given. If their figures are right, one can only say that they bear no comparison to the actual rents now being determined

by the rent assessment committee. This is the dilemma which hon. Members opposite have not yet faced

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member very properly raises that point, and I understand what he means. My own researches. for what they are worth—they have been extremely amateurish—always suggested that rents would not go up to anything like double. I take the hon. Gentleman's point but I can only say that the rents I have looked at do not support the Opposition's case, though I concede that my constituency may not throw up proper averages or necessarily reflect the state of affairs in other Birmingham constituencies.
I come now to one of the criticisms which I have of the Bill, which I think will be shared by other hon. Members on both sides. When making a fundamental change—a change for the good, in my view—in housing finance policy, it is best if the rents which people will have to pay are established before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear] They still can be, and in many cases they will be. But it would have removed the opportunity for, if I may say so, petty parochial political points to be thrown across the Floor in the way they have been. There is great sincerity on these matters on both sides, I know, and I feel that it would have been best if the fair rents could have been established so that people would know at an earlier stage what they would have to pay.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is aproaching the matter in a very fair way. He tells us that he never thought rents would rise by very large amounts. Why then, if they would rise only by between 15p and 97p a week, did the Government insist on £1 a week in October, if it had not been for the pressure from the movement outside which caused them subsequently to climb down?

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on these matters and he spoke eloquently and ably in Committee, though I did not necessarily agree with him. With respect, 50p on 1st April. 75p on 1st July or 100p on 1st October in no sense represents a contradiction of what I am saying. I have never denied


that rents would go up. But when one speaks of rents going up by £ 1 a week in October, if they are not put up before, that, presumably, takes into consideration inflation and the time when they were last increased. That is in no sense a contradiction of the figures which have come from Birmingham, which have yet to be confirmed. There has certainly been no climb-down as a result of lobbying by tenants' associations and so on. I am quite certain of that.
The second point I would make, which was brought out in Committee with great sincerity on both sides, is the question of half the surpluses going to the Exchequer. I know this brings into consideration the whole question of hypothecated taxation. I know the Treasury will say that the money it receives from the surpluses on the housing revenue accounts, if there are surpluses, will go back into housing in one form or another with much more besides. Examples are the urban aid programme, improvement grants, grants for derelict land and all those sort of things. I accept that but there is the valid point of public relations that people should see that that money is being used for housing.
I would have preferred a system which might sound hypocritical but which would have helped to remove this problem. The housing authorities that made a surplus on their housing revenue account should be allowed to keep the surplus and, if necessary, the rate support grant they receive from the Exchequer should be adjusted. I think that this could not be done because of the law and this would be the official reply, but if so the law should be changed. This is notwithstanding the fact that the rating system is out of date. Proof of that is shown by the fact that on average 60 per cent. of local authority revenue has to come from the Government block grant instead of being raised by the system of rateable values.
It is important on Third Reading of a Bill of this sort to refer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury did, to the question not only of providing homes for people but of trying to work out what sort of home or what type of dwelling should be provided. I make no apologies for going back to a survey published by the Opinion Research Centre almost five years ago in 1967

which said two things which 1 believe still hold true today. The survey was done very responsibly and people were asked, recognising the financial situation of their family, what sort of house they would like to live in. I think 68 per cent. of those questioned wanted to become owner-occupiers. The survey included all those people very happily settled in local authority housing. This indicates that there is a tremendous demand, given the financial opportunity, by people to start the process of owning their own home.
Whichever Government are in power should bear that in mind. Because of that there seems nothing wrong necessarily in upsetting the balance of about fifty-fifty between owner-occupiers and those in rented accommodation in favour of producing more homes for those who want to buy them. If that is true the parallel should be accepted. Again I do not put it emotionally in a naïve political fashion, but there seems nothing wrong in therefore continuing the process of selling council houses.
I am worried about the social divisiveness that can be caused by past housing policies. I am sure it must worry many others who have the problem, which is not as great in my constituency as it may be in some Birmingham constituencies. The divisiveness is illustrated by the attitude that council house tenants live on one side of the railway track and we, if we are fortunate enough to be able to say so, live in the nice houses on the nice side of the town.
It is a good thing to break up some of the massive estates in the sense of having willing owner-occupiers playing their part in these communities and making the whole system, from the social point of view, much more open and ultimately much more equal.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members on both sides to learn that the survey discovered that only 1 per cent. of our families want to live in multi-storey blocks of flats. After the Ronan Point disaster the writing is on the wall for multi-storey blocks of flats as a general rule, if not the exception. I very much hope that is the case. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends seriously to consider what we can do about the mistake politicians and planners made after the war in thinking that the only


choices were to build upwards in our existing urban areas or to sprawl out into suburbia and into our countryside. The planners have now found that it is possible to obtain as great a density with low-level buildings in our existing urban areas as with the multi-storey blocks of flats. Such blocks have almost become virility symbols among local authorities —if one authority has so many blocks 20-storeys high, another must have so many more 30-storeys high.
It should be remembered in comprehensive redevelopment schemes in our cities that multi-storey blocks of flats not only destroy the character of the area that existed before but in many cases destroy the souls of those who have to live in them. There should be a national competition not so much to discover the ideal home and the best design for a house as to discover how attractively we can lay out housing estates at maximum densities and yet make them to the designs that people want to live in, and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood in so doing.
We talk in the Bill about the politics of housing. Perhaps it is a cheap and easy thing to say outside this Chamber but I believe that the public are beginning to say "A plague on both your parties" in regard to housing policies as they have been for the past 25 years. It is indisputable that housing has suffered from the economic uncertainties caused by or brought about during the periods in office of Governments of both parties since the war.
This massive Bill tries to deal with a massive problem in a fair way. I believe it will put housing in Britain in the last third of the twentieth century on a more rational, more reasonable and more realistic basis. If not on that score alone, but on that main issue, I welcome and support the Bill.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I first echo what has been said about the well-argued and forceful speech of my hon. Friend the new Member for South wark (Mr. Lamborn). I particularly congratulate him on his skill in treading the narrow line, the perhaps invisible line, between being relatively uncontroversial and making some emphatic com-

ments about the Bill. I am especially pleased to do this not only because I spent some time going around the estates about which he spoke before his dramatic victory last Thursday, and therefore have some experience of what he was talking about, but also because I believe that his constituency has the largest number of tenants of any in the country—98 per cent., I believe. For that reason my hon. Friend's words carry weight. We all look forward to further contributions from him on housing and other matters.
On a Bill that is more concerned with finance than housing, it is remarkable how coy the Minister has been about telling the House the true facts about the financial changes it will bring about. The central factor about the Bill is that it is not, as Ministers have repeatedly claimed, a shift in subsidy from bricks and mortar to families and people. but rather a straight cut in subsidy to council tenants.
According to the latest available figures, the central Government's housing subsidies, plus rate fund contribution and supplementary benefit rent payments. amounted in 1970–71 to £465 million. By 1975–76, when the fair rent system is operational, the best available figures suggest that rent rebate and rent allowance subsidies, plus supplementary benefit rent payment. will amount to only £240 million. If one adds the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account deficits, the figure rises to about £280 million. But the central point is that this represents a swingeing cut of little short of £200 million, and simply to achieve this central fact it is proposed to build a means test apparatus of unprecederuted bureaucratic proportions.
What it means for the local authorities and the private tenants, if we extrapolate from housing trends of the last five years, is a cut in subsidy from £63 to £33 a year, a reduction on average of almost half. By contrast, over exactly the same period the total of mortgage interest tax relief to owner-occupiers will rise from £300 million to about £400 million, representing on average a rise for the owner-occupier of from about £62 a year to about £68. It is this shift from the poorer half of the nation in favour of the better off other half that lies at the heart of the Bill, and it is entirely


consistent with the whole anti-welfare ethos of the Government.
It is equally clearly inconsistent with the principle enunciated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing ", which has already been quoted, somewhat curiously, by hon. Members on the Government side. It refers to
 fairness between one citizen and another in giving and receiving help towards housing costs
The size and coverage of some of these rent increases can only properly be described as penal.
Here I take it that we are going by the original figures and not those produced at the last minute by the Minister in a moment of panic opportunism last week. It is therefore likely that 750,000 council tenants will be faced with a compulsory rise, even after rent rebate has been taken into account, of between £1·50 and £2 a week. It is also likely that a million and a quarter tenants with incomes of only up to £10 a week above the national average—the previous figures were below average—will, after rebate, have to pay an extra £3 per week for their homes.
These are huge increases by any standard and they are nevertheless still understatements, because in every case allowance has been made for appropriate rebate being received and all past experience suggests that this is wildly optimistic. It is a bad and sad augury for the Bill that at a time when it is proposed to extend three million means-tested rebates to tenants, the family income supplement, after a publicity campaign costing £500,000, has had a take-up rate over the last few months of under 50 per cent. If the means-tested rebate has a take-up of under 50 per cent., as is likely, the size of future rent increases will be substantially bigger than the Government have tried to predict and quite the reverse of what the Minister tried to make out last week.
Leaving that aside and assuming that rebates are wholly taken up, optimistic though that is, it is clear from existing housing statistics of rent levels and household income that local authority tenants will lose all across the board. That does not in any way exclude those on the lowest incomes. The average council tenant still stands to lose about

£50 of his present annual £86 subsidy, which includes supplementary benefit rent payments which are often omitted from calculations. The higher income council tenant will stand to lose £60 a year. Even the lowest income council tenants, those the Bill is intended particularly to help, so we are told, those with incomes of less than £20 a week, will still lose on average about £25 a year, including supplementary benefit rent payments. These are not fair rents: they are grossly unfair rents. and they are made to seem all the more unfair because of the stark contrast in the different treatment between housing groups.
While 4 million tenants with incomes below £40 a week will lose—even with supplementary benefit rate payments taken into account—£150 million. 21 million owner—occupiers with incomes over £40 a week will stand to gain about £57 million over the same period in extra housing aid. These are the financial facts. They have been worked out extremely carefully on the basis of all the information the Minister has given and all the existing housing statistics.
There is another way in which the poor are to be forced to subsidise the rich. It is clear that areas with low rents will produce the most surplus. These rents are to be forced up to the fair rent levels, just as it is true that areas of high rents, which are near the so-called fair rent levels, will need help in order to pay rebates. By this means surpluses as well as subsidies will be drawn from relatively low rent areas to relatively high rent areas. Yet it is low rents that are chiefly in poor regions and high rents that are chiefly in well-off regions.
That means that the areas that have been picked out by the Hunt Report, for instance. as those most in need of economic aid will lose one of the few economic advantages they have left to alleviate the housing problems of better off areas. There is another redistributive distortion in the Bill. It is the power given to local authorities to refuse to pay rent rebates if they are considered to he too large because the accommodation is deemed to be unsuitable for the tenant.
The general tendency following from this can be only for the better-off tenants to he channelled into the better-class areas and for the poorer tenants to be


channelled into the lower-class areas. Apart from the ugly discrimination by income that this will inevitably evoke, in the long run there will not be a great saving of public expenditure. This crystallisation, the stratifying, of districts by rent and income is likely in the long run to attract the requirement of costly positive discrimination in both education and environmental programmes. It would be foolish to assume that public expenditure will necessarily be cut by anything like as much as Ministers have indicated.
Even if low income tenants were awarded better class accommodation and given large rebates, many would still not be able to pay a higher rent because, so long as their income exceeds the needs allowance, they are obliged to pay 40 per cent. of the fair rent. The better the accommodation is, the larger is the 40 per cent. in cash terms. Nor is the tenant necessarily better protected since we have been told that the allowance will be only a proportion of the fair rent if the dwelling is much larger than the tenant is supposed to require or is situated in an area of high property value.
We have been given no adequate assurance about the fate of, say, an elderly couple who have been living for many years in a flat in a relatively low income area but who find because of middle-class colonisation that their area becomes popular, relatively fashionable and expensive, a fact quickly reflected in a rapidly rising fair rent. At the same time the local authority refuses to pay the full rebate because the dramatic rise in property values is regarded as making the area unsuitable for these persons. There must be millions of such persons.
It is this social divisiveness even more than the income levels which will tell against the poor man. It is this divisiveness by area which is paralleled by the domestic divisions which will be produced under the Bill, by the sharp cutback in rebate as a result of every extra adult non-dependent member of the household. It is unforgivable that many poor families will have to make a choice between keeping their grandmother with them and losing a rebate or a greater part of it or preserving the rebate and rejecting the grandmother. These things are unforgivable because they are not done as a result of economic necessity

but as an odious side-effect of a policy of retrenchment in favour of the rich.
I see the Secretary of State smiling but this Bill is aimed at cutting public expenditure on council tenants to give several hundreds of millions of pounds to the better off, particularly those earning over £5,000 a year. Far from the Bill being an example—as the right hon. Gentleman said with a rather curious irony on another occasion—of practical Socialism, a title by which he chose to geld rather than gild, this Measure, it is the biggest step this Government have taken in the introduction of a new poor law.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is not with us because I had hoped to address him personally on his remarkable speech when he suffered the most extraordinary loss of memory. He built up a gigantic edifice of an argument based on the premise that the average rent in Birmingham now is only 35p less than what is likely to be a fair rent. He used the most extraordinary phrases, speaking of "illegitimate figures ".
This is strange, since we had figures in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that Newcastle and Portsmouth were in a similar position. The figures for Birmingham given by my right hon. Friend were a current rent of £3·25 and a likely fair rent of £3·60, an increase of 35p. The Newcastle figure is a little different although the right hon. Gentleman tried to say it was much the same. The Newcastle rent last year was £2·85 and the average fair rent as quoted by my right hon. Friend in Committee was £3·55 to £4. It is not an increase of 35p but 70p at the minimum. In Portsmouth the average rent last year was £4 and the likely future rent £5·50. So the right hon. Gentleman cannot call Portsmouth in aid. My right hon. Friend gave many other figures—Liverpool, Manchester and Stockport, £3·85; Leicester, £4; Cardiff and Swansea, £3·40. These figures should be compared with the Birmingham figure of £3·60, which the right hon. Gentleman considered to be deliberate deceit.
I know that the situation in Birmingham is an intense embarrassment to the Labour Party because it shows that those rents will not double. The impression


which the Opposition have given throughout their fight on this Bill is that rents will double. My right hon. Friend paid tribute to the Opposition's effective propaganda in explaining the Bill to the public. The effect of it is that most tenants believe that profits from wealthy tenants will be used to subsidise needy tenants. They say, "Why should we do this? We already pay our rates and taxes and that is what should be used to subsidise needy tenants ".
There is a deliberately organised confusion in this matter. I do not wish to be harsh on the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), because he is an ex-constituent of mine, but he added to the confusion by saying that the most needy tenants would find that they were paying £25 a year more in rent. He managed to prove figures to himself which were totally inaccurate. Taking the typical case of a family with two children and an income of £20 a week, if their rent was £2, they would pay 94p. If their rent was £5 they would pay £1·94, so they would pay under £2 a week. How the hon. Gentleman can pretend that that implies that under the rent rebate scheme that family will have to pay £25 a year more in rent is amazing.

Mr. Meacher: It is not amazing if one takes into account the question of supplementary benefit rent payments plus local authority subsidies. The situation will change because there will be a substantial cutback in supplementary benefit rent payments and after five years it will be the lowest income groups who stand to lose most in the cutback of supplementary benefit payments. That will produce the effect to which I referred.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman has a certain expertise in this matter and he surely knows that people on supplementary benefit have the whole of their rent and rates paid, and they will continue to have them paid under the Bill. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they will. They will be paid either by way of relief in rent rebates or by way of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Meacher: Read the Bill.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman has not had the benefit of listening to 250 hours discussion in Committee.

Mr. Ronald Brown: It did not do you much good.

Mr. Allason: There is a deliberately organised confusion in this matter, with scare talk of high rents and huge profits. It is therefore necessary to consider the total effect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham, West picks out one figure and then tries to prove to his intense satisfaction that it does something. We need to look at the matter in the round. We have a pledge from the Government that the existing level of subsidies will continue to be paid by way of rent rebates and rent allowances. Where there is a profit it will be used for those areas where the housing revenue account is still in deficit.
We know that some local authorities will make a profit and some a loss, and they will continue to make a loss because of the very high cost of housing in some areas. The fact that some of the money goes to the Government and the Government pay it out again is irrelevant. What matters is where the money ends up. The profit will go from the areas which make a profit to those which do not.
This is all a matter of pooling, and every council already has such a pool. There are some rents on which a profit is made on historic costs and that is then used to subsidise the higher costs of later buildings. It is not considered immoral to use the pooling of historic costs. Indeed this was considered by the Labour Government as one means of resolving the great difficulty which lies in the fact that housing subsidies under the 1967 Act are likely to increase to a quite unacceptable level.
The essence of the Bill is that the rebate should be provided for those in need. We know that one-tenth of the present rebate goes to those in need and the rest goes to reduce the general level of housing rents.

Mr. Loughlin: Sit down. You do not know anything about

Mr. Allason: Perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) would keep quiet for a little while. I know he finds it very difficult at this time of night.
It is self-evident that subsidies should be directed to those in need. Hon. Members opposite who generally support subsidies to those in need now find themselves in difficulty. Therefore, they have tried to find arguments for objecting to this subsidy. One of the arguments involves means tests. The fact that there are 42 other means tests does not worry them, but they do not like this one and they feel that they must condemn it. They use objectionable phrases such as going "cap in hand" to ask for help. This is not the way to regard the matter. Housing is an expensive commodity and help should be given to those who need it. In order to judge the situation we need to have a means test.
This means test is not the old means test of the 1930s. It is on similar lines to income tax. Everybody has to complete a tax form declaring income. And so here it is reasonable, if one wants a reduction in rent, to be asked what one's income amounts to. There is no stigma in this and it is surely reasonable that anybody who needs it should get a rebate.
Another argument against this provision is that it is a disincentive to earnings, and we have heard elaborate arguments about that related not to the Bill but to other matters such as family income supplement. The disincentive in the Bill is that if someone earns an additional pound he will lose 17p of his rent rebate. That seems to be reasonable. It cannot possibly be a disincentive. It is a gradual tapering off in the way that I should expect such a subsidy to go. A subsidy which tapers off at 50 per cent. is unacceptable, and that is where we want to attack the tapering off of subsidies.
What the Bill is still short of is something which I have sought to get all the way through, and that is rent rebates for furnished tenancies. We have had a fairly satisfactory undertaking from my right hon. Friend that they will be introduced. I hope that they will be introduced in this Bill, and soon. My right hon. Friend mentioned the date of 1st April, 1973, as a possibility.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an axiom that on Third Reading an hon. Member can speak only to what is in the Bill. As furnished tenancies are not referred to

in the Bill, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) must be out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallatieu): I was allowing the hon. Member a little liberty. I hope that he will confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Allason: I think you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that passing references are in order and have been so ruled to be during the course of this debate which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has seldom attended.
The House knows the fight that I have put up for better housing during all the years that I have been a Member. For many years I have criticised both Governments for the size of their housing programmes. I have always believed in the need to fight for more houses than the Department considers is necessary. The abandonment by the previous Government of a target of 500,000 houses a year was a tragedy.
The Bill is a milestone of progress. Nobody in this country need starve. A beggar in the street who says that he is starving need not worry, because help is always available for him. Help is always available for anyone who is sick. This great reform will mean that nobody will be refused a decent home because he cannot afford it. The help will be there for him.

9.49 p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: In Committee I often remarked that the Government's Housing Finance Bill was different from the one being considered by the Opposition, and it is obvious from the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that that is so.
My hon. Friends and I have been accused of scaring council tenants. The responsibility for the present situation is entirely the Minister's. At the beginning of the debate in Committee he could easily have said "The maximum rent which I shall allow under the Bill will be £x." The scare has arisen because of the Minister's campaign, not least because even at this stage the right hon. Gentleman has not said what he expects fair rents to be.
I assure the House, having had considerable experience in local government,


including in Birmingham, that 10,000 tenants in the Birmingham area were, under the old scheme, enjoying rebates, not taking account of those in receipt of social security payments in respect of rents.
Rebates for council house tenants have been accepted as a part of life since 1919, when the need to subsidise housing was appreciated because of the great shortage. The same goes for income tax rebates or subsidies paid to owner-occupiers. Perhaps the original subsidy in the public sector was open-ended, but over the years it has been adapted to meet the needs of individual local authorities, each of which has appreciated the need for local authority housing subsidies.
The fundamental change made by the Bill—this represents a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House —will mean that eventually, and probably as early as 1981, the whole philosophy of public sector housing as compared with private sector accommodation will alter. The point will be reached when the private sector will be getting subsidy by way of income tax relief while the municipal sector will be getting nothing. The Minister does not deny that considerable surpluses will be built up in many areas.
I have very few minutes in which to speak, and many of the points that I would have made I will not make. Under the 1957 Act local authorities had a stautory obligation to make what were called reasonable charges for their dwellings. The vast majority of councillors and officials are conscientious people and have interpreted" reasonable charges "fairly and in such a way as to reflect building costs, the cost of land, the employment situation locally and wage rates in their areas. Reasonable rents were being charged in Birmingham because those various factors had been taken into account. This applies to the majority of local authority tenants.
In my view a fair rent is a rent that a person can afford to pay without needing a rebate. The council tenant should be able to have rights as an individual. The council tenant has to preserve his dignity in some way. Therefore. he ought to he able to afford the rent of the dwelling in which he lives without going cap in hand and filling in lots of forms. In what we call a fair rent assess-

ment, the dignity of the individual is not taken into consideration in the Bill. If rents are fixed under the Bill in such an unfair way that they cannot be paid without rebates by the average person receiving an average wage, the average wage becomes too low and we ought to shift the balance and argue for fair wages instead of fair rents.
It seems a strange phenomenon that those on the Government benches argue in support of a policy for higher rents on the one hand and in the same breath support a reduction in taxes to ease unemployment. That is a complete fallacy. If we accept that 5¼council house tenants are what we call the big spenders in the economy, they are some of the people who are constantly spending their money and keeping the money cycle going. In the main they are not the savers in society generally. If we take money from them in the form of higher rents, obviously we take away from the economy the purchasing power they have in their hands and we increase unemployment.
As for the points of view expressed from the Government benches about housing developments and flats, I become a little weary sometimes about the platitudes used about the kind of local authorities that develop high density flats. I now that Birmingham has more than its fair share of high density flats. But why have all these local authorities more than their fair share of them? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) gave an example of the great densities in his constituency. It is the same in my constituency. But why do we have them in the stress areas? It is because the Aylesburys, the Richmonds, the Sutton Coldfields and the Worcesters will not have us in their areas.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fisher: Not at this time of night, because I have only two minutes left Those are the reasons why the stress areas have to build to such densities. We have no alternative but to build high. We have to get the numbers to the acre
Members on the Government benches are fond of platitudes about this, saying that we ought not to be doing this sort of thing. hey could easily solve the


problem. The housing situation in Greater London could be much more easily solved if some of the more affluent boroughs would give some of their land for council properties.
As I said last week, the Bill is vicious and socially divisive, and it saps away

all local initiative. It is wildly inflationery. What we ought to condemn it for more than anything else is that it does nothing to relieve the serious housing situation of thousands upon thousands of people who have no prospect of a decent home unless the local authority provides it.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I first had the pleasure of welcoming the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the new Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn). Whatever the views are on either side of the House about the Bill and other aspects of housing policy, we can all be agreed that his speech was admirable, to the point, and very well informed. I am sure that my hon. Friends will look forward very much to his future contributions to our consideration of housing policy, just as we look forward, as the people of London look forward, to a Labour victory, with his help, at County Hall this time next year.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Oredered,

That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Medical Advisory Service Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Goodhew.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Freeson: Before proceeding to deal with the two or three main points that have concerned us in this debate, I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), when towards the end of her remarks she said that the Bill had nothing to contribute towards the solving of the housing problems of thousands, I would say millions, of people living in our stress areas on anywhere near the scale on which we should be tackling them.
I have no doubt that the Bill reflects an aspect of policy, or a total policy on the part of the present Conservative Government seriously to cut back on local authority house building. I am prepared to put a figure to it, and to say that it is in the Government's mind to aim in the local authority house building sector at about 100,000 starts a year and no more.
That is very much in line with the inheritance of the previous Labour Government when they took office from the previous Tory Administration which had talked for years about making slum clearance and the clearance of obsolescent property a first priority. While those

Ministers were making grand speeches the Tory Government of that time proceeded to cut the local authority house building programme year by year until it came down to just over 100,000 housing starts —until the 1964 General Election spurt, that is to say. That was the one exception. In all the previous years the programme has steadily dropped.
That is what is in the mind of the Government today in spite of all their talk about solving the problems of obsolescence, and this Bill is part of that policy. They have had nothing to say whatsoever either in the White Paper or in our consideration of the Bill about the urgent need to expand in a major way public investment in house building. That could not have been shown more clearly than in their own White Paper on public expenditure published earlier this year.
We have had a long time on the Bill since last year, and it continues to be either a very bad Bill or an irrelevant Bill. It is bad if its logic, which has been argued by the Government week after week and month after month ever since last autumn, is to be carried into effect. It is irrelevant if the logic of what the Minister and the Under-Secretary had to say on Thursday evening following their consultations with their Tory friends in Birmingham is carried into effect. It is one thing or the other. If it is irrelevant, we have wasted a tremendous amount of time in the House and in the country.
The Bill creates a giant structure of interference. There has never been a housing Bill like it in respect of interference down to the minute detail of what local authorities must do in rent policy to produce something like 10 per cent. in rents in Birmingham overall, for example, if what the Minister has said is to be accepted in the spirit in which he spoke on Thursday.
I want to continue the arguments we have had on the cornerstone of the Bill, which is the so-called fair rents provision. In some areas it will be the market rent less scarcity value. What lies behind the Bill is the concept of the market being introduced into what until now has been a non-profit making public service. For the last half-century that has been the central principle of public authority


housing, for the most part undertaken by local authorities, although in some areas housing associations have entered the scene. The non-profit making element will be killed by the Bill if it is carried into effect.
The advocates of so-called fair rents habitually argue that this is the rational way of handling rents in considering housing as a whole. They take the cost value of owner-occupation and, indeed, the more expensive elements in private rented accommodation, at today's costs and set this against rents in the council sector taken at historic costs. They then argue that today rents should be taken at today's costs, no matter how old the houses are and no matter what they cost to build or to maintain.
The logic should be that, if tenants should pay today's costs, so should everybody else, andvice versa. If a large section of the public are paying on the historic costs of their dwellings, so should all tenants. Market rents, based on today's value of property, are not rational, fair or relevant.
All owner-occupiers did not buy their houses yesterday or today. Half of them bought them long ago and own them today outright. The other 50 per cent. bought them at any time in the past 20 or more years and pay today on the amount of the mortgage they raised at the time of the purchase, heavily if they bought recently, very little if they bought their homes 15 or 20 years ago. They enjoy the benefit of historic cost. Every owner-occupier, once he can save the deposit and raise a mortgage for the balance, will have a burden which grows less as he pays off his mortgage in depreciating pounds out of a growing income in most cases. He is protected from future increases in cost. There is a steady fall in the proportion of his income he pays for his dwelling. There is a steady appreciation in the capital value.
Where is the logic and the fairness as between tenant and owner-occupier in denying the benefit of historic cost to tenants while owner-occupiers benefit so greatly from it? This is a complete reversal of 50 years of public authority housing policy. The past objective has been to provide non-profit making houses at rents which the vast majority of tenants

can afford to pay. In future, rents will be at levels which nearly half the tenants will not be able to pay without rebates and there will be profits in most local authority areas.

Mr. Peter Trew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost to the owner-occupier of maintaining, repairing and insuring his house increases yearly, whereas the council tenant has no responsibility for these elements? [An HON. MEMBER: "He has."] If an owner-occupier falls ill or loses his job, he has no recourse to a rebate as the council tenant has.

Mr. Freeson: On the last point, there is recourse to the Supplement Benefits Commission. But there is a very serious question of poverty among many owner-occupiers which has not yet in any way been dealt with by the Government, and I certainly know that up to the change of Government there was a study in process in the Department of Health and Social Security.
On the other point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I believe he has had experience of housing in local government.

Mr. Trew: Mr. Trew indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeson: I stand corrected on that point. But may I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that until the Bill becomes law all local authorities operate a housing repairs fund, and a proportion per year per dwelling is put into that fund, calculated as part of the expenditure in the housing revenue account, according to which rents have to be fixed as well as other charges by way of income. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Tenants have to pay their part of the repairs, and in many areas it has been the wrong practice to withdraw the responsibility of local authorities for internal repairs and decorations, particularly in recent years under the administration of the Conservative Party.
Returning to the main theme of my argument, my statement of the position of the owner-occupier has been factual. Otherwise most of us who are owner-occupiers would not be owner-occupiers. We would find it more economic to continue to rent properties.
On the earlier built local authority houses—probably all those built before


1960—rents are paid which either marginally or to a considerable extent exceed the cost of providing or maintaining the dwellings. I am sick and tired of this nonsense from the other side of the House —we had it again this afternoon and this evening—that there is some kind of indiscriminate subsidy paid out to council tenants. The vast majority of council tenants are not subsidised—that applies to practically every local authority dwelling built before 1960—unless they are in receipt of individual family rebates under the existing rebate schemes. As for the later houses, those built within the last decade or 12 years, far less is paid than the cost of providing and maintaining those houses. This applies probably in all areas.
All occupiers pay rents which fairly reflect the relative size and quality of the dwellings they occupy. At least, this is so if a local housing authority is doing its job well, and the vast majority have done so. That is another thing that I am tired of hearing—this constant denigration of local authority housing. We should be proud of our local authority housing. It is an example to the world.
The effect of this policy of what is described as rent pooling is to channel subsidies which are received on all houses to the benefit of the latest and most expensive or to people receiving rent rebates. That is how it should be. If rents are sufficient to cover outgoings, what can be the justification for further rent increases? How can the Conservative Party justify further rent increases in such circumstances, and with even further rent increases, according to the Bill, at three yearly intervals for ever after? We say it should not be done. If on no other ground, it should not be done on a fair comparison of the position of owner occupation and fair treatment for those in the public sector.
If we are talking about freedom of choice, let us get as near as possible to a fair basis of comparison. We have not had that from the Government, and I am trying to correct that position now. I have said that the owner-occupier has the benefit of the historic cost of his property as well as security against future inflation. A new owner-occupier will have the benefit of historic cost during the life of his mortgage. No one suggests that

he is not entitled to retain that historic cost benefit, but, in our view in the Labour Party, it follows that tenants also should not be denied a share of such historic cost benefit. In the public sector, the tenant gains as soon as he becomes the tenant, as a result of rent pooling. On the other hand, he must expect rent increases over the years to come, so that, in one way or another, it balances out.
In my view, it is the strength, not the weakness, of public sector housing that historic costs and rent pooling system can restrain the impact of rising costs on tenants of new properties. It is a strength of the system, it should be retained, and this can be done only by large-scale ownership of properties which are then subject to equalisation of rent policies through rent pooling on the historic cost basis.
There can be variations according to local circumstances, there can be flexibility as regards rate contributions and Exchequer contributions, but the basic principle is one towards which local government has correctly been moving on a large scale over many years now, certainly since the Second World War, greatly to the benefit not only of tenants but of the community at large.
I go further and assert that the present intense spiral of inflation in the housing market, about which so much concern is being expressed, might be checked effectively only by reversing present Government policy in public authority housing, that is, by rapidly increasing the scale of local authority building and by retaining a policy of charging reasonably based rents rather than market rents. This could make a major contribution, in my view, in restraining the present rate of inflation in the housing market generally. There is a strong case for retaining a general subsidy system, whatever variations there may be for stress areas and high cost areas, alongside the system of subsidy through tax remission to owner-occupiers in the private sector.
But all that I am saying in opposition to Government policy is sound argument only if the definition of fair rents is market less scarcity value, as in Clause 50. This is the cornerstone of the Bill, the market rent system. We argued in Committee and in the House, as well as


in the country, that criteria other than market less scarcity value should be used to establish what could be correctly described as the fair rent, in contrast to what the Government propose.
We argued for various criteria. We argued that housing accounts should be allowed to remain in balance and that, if they went into surplus, local authorities should be allowed to retain the moneys and plough them back to the benefit of their housing estates and local communities. Our Amendments to that end were rejected by the Government. We argued that the basis for rent fixing could be gross values. That also was rejected, or, at best, it was suggested that it might be taken as a marginal criterion only.
We argued that local authorities should be allowed to take into account the general economic circumstances of their area, the wage levels, for example, in arriving at rents. Again, our Amendments were rejected. We argued that they should be allowed to fix rents, as they have in the past, in such a way as to avoid a high proportion of their tenants being compelled to apply for a rent rebate if they were to be able to retain their tenancies and have a reasonable standard of living.
Again, this was rejected by the Government. But now a different situation seems to be emerging. It started before our debate last Thursday. Some of us follow what I believe we inaccurately call the provincial Press. We saw the emergence of this new tale to tell in Birmingham several days before the Minister announced with a great flourish the figures for the proposals he had received from Birmingham.
Some of us obtained copies of the report of the director of housing which has gone through the council and is now presumably in the Minister's hands. There was some denial of this last Thursday. As a result of the report a different picture emerges. The Minister intervened quietly to say there was no denial. We were told no information was yet available to the Minister about the criteria that Birmingham had used to arrive at the figures that the Minister had quoted.
I think I can rightly challenge that statement now. There is reason to believe the information was known to

the Department at the time of the debate last Thursday. But if what the Minister and the Under-Secretary said last Thursday about Birmingham was accurate, why have the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) asked at the beginning of the debate? Why go through all this to produce a 10 per cent. increase? It will happen again in London, in Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester and in every major town and city in this country when similar proposals will be put forward.
I was asked during the course of the debate what my advice would be to Labour councillors. To those who are already in control and to those who have now come into power, my advice would be that as quickly as possible they should instruct their officers to use all the criteria which Labour Members advocated during the Committee stage as the right basis for arriving at genuinely fair rents, in order to prepare their proposals to submit to the Minister. First, they should examine gross values, contrary to what the Minister said in Committee. Second, having done that they should discount shortage in their area by a factor of at least 20 per cent. so that the figure arrived at is at least 20 per cent. below gross value figures. Third, they should seek to obtain accurate figures of average earnings in their area and they should ensure that a large proportion of their tenants will not be forced to apply for a rebate. They should aim for something less than half the 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. that the Government have proposed as the numbers eligible to apply for rent rebate under the Bill. Fourth, they should take account of the type of occupation of their properties—for example, where old people or families with special needs are occupying dwellings in their estates. Fifth, they should ignore, or treat at best as quite marginal, the comparability with rents that have been registered for equivalent properties in the private sector.
All these things they should do to produce rents which will be somewhat in line with the kind of policy that we advocated time and time again in great detail in Committee—criteria which Birmingham has used for presenting its figures to the Minister. We trust that now there has been a change of control in Birmingham that the Minister will not


renege on the spirit with which he introduced these figures in the debate last Thursday. We trust that just as he was pleased to announce them in support of the Bill, supported by the Under-Secretary, and notwithstanding the fact that they produce criteria which are out of line with Clauses 50 and 58 of the Bill, he will not now go back on them because his gimmick can no longer be used for political ends in the local elections.

Mr. Tebbitt: May I then confidently tell the Waltham Forest Borough Council that the advice from the Opposition Front Bench is that the Bill should be implemented?

Mr. Freeson: I am pleased to give the advice to my Labour colleagues throughout the country who wish to take it that they should implement the Bill in the same way as the Minister indicated last Thursday on the Floor of the House. I am a great believer in the rule of law, and I trust that all local authorities will follow the implied advice of the Minister and the example of Birmingham in its application and the criteria it used in calculating the rent proposals that have now been put to the Minister. If he is proud to present those figures to the House he cannot at the same time deny their basis, the criteria which the Birmingham Council used to calculate the rents it put to him.
My advice to every Labour authority in the country is to use the same criteria and put forward rent proposals along similar lines to the Government. I do not give a damn whether that blows a hole through the Government's policy. I am concerned, as is everyone in the Labour Party, to get rents on to a basis which is as near non-profit-making as we can have in our society. It is for that reason that I give this advice.
If the Minister wants to fudge tonight, it will not be good enough, and the matter will not end in this debate. I trust that all councils will do precisely what I have advised them to do, so that we get back to some principle in housing—[An HON. MEMBER: "What principle? "] It should be as near as possible to having no profit in public service housing, the principle that all money made by way of rent should be ploughed

back into housing and into improving the neighbourhoods where housing estates are established. We argued along those lines in Committee, and sought to table Amendments which time and time again were rejected by the Government. We are glad to have had at least some measure of success in the campaign which we waged throughout the country and which we shall continue to wage after Third Reading. When we come back to office we shall repeal the Bill and introduce into local authority housing fairness, sound principles in finances, and willingness to support local authorities in building homes rather than cutting back on their house-building programmes.
Let the Minister say tonight that his Bill and his policies will drastically increase the rate of local authority house building, and at least there will be some measure of acceptance of his intentions in other directions. At present we are on the road to the lowest number of housing starts by local authorities for the past 15 years. We are running at the 1961 rate. We are 10 years back in the number of houses being built by local authorities.
The Minister has a great opportunity. All over the country Labour councils have been returned within the last few days, councils which, unlike the people they have replaced, have some enthusiasm for solving the housing problems of their areas. We look forward to seeing some co-operation from the Tory Government in support of their endeavours to solve their problems, instead of the undermining, denigrating campaign the Conservatives have been waging in Opposition and in Government against the whole concept of public service in housing.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): We come towards the end of the Third Reading of this long and controversial Bill. First, I join the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in offering congratulations to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) on the occasion of his maiden speech. I had great respect and, indeed, affection for the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I did not have the privilege of hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech, but from what I have been told it was one


which would encourage us to hear him often again.
We have had six debates, including the Report stage, since the fair rents policy was first outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1970. We spent 248 hours in Committee, where we had 57 sittings. It is true that we had a guillotine Resolution, but only after an offer of time, of unprecedented generosity, of five days a week, which was rejected. Since then, we have had what I might call broad debates on issues of principle on Report, in which we have not always had our way. Some of my hon. Friends have made me sit up a bit, and I would like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) that I hope to meet him at least some of the way in the days ahead, and I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) had to say about the importance of public relations where rent allowances are concerned.
Our Third Reading debate has been much more like a Second Reading debate, and indeed the Opposition's root and branch opposition to the Bill has been a little modified today. By and large they are still clinging, as far as I understand it, to the existing system, but we on this side are convinced that it is no longer appropriate to our needs. It now costs some £200 million a year, excluding supplementary benefit. It would more than double before the end of the decade, involving more taxation and higher rates. All this in itself would be highly inflationary, which would he contrary to the anti-inflation aspects of Government policy. Clearly, nothing would be more inflationary than taxing people as a whole, including people less well off, in order to subsidise people better off than themselves.

Mr. Austen Albu: Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton) rose—

Mr. Amery: I will not give way at this stage.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has often stigmatised the Bill as essentially a finance Bill, essentially designed to save money. I am not so sure that it will. I have always made it clear in every speech I have made on the subject that I think the re-organisation

and re-distribution of subsidies we propose stands on its own merits whether or not it effects a reduction in public expenditure.
Of course, the increase in public expenditure, which under the old system would have been called for, would have been acceptable if it had gone to the people and the areas in need. But most of it does not do so today, and certainly would not do so tomorrow, and we cannot accept a situation where there is no rebate opportunity for a million council houses and where there are many more council houses which get no adequate rebate. Nor can we accept a situation where some three million people in the private sector get no rebate scheme of any kind. Our Bill recognises this through the rent rebate system and the rent allowance system.
Nor can we accept a situation where millions of people still live in slums and substandard housing. As the Bill makes clear, our slum clearance subsidy will be of immense help to those areas which still have a slum problem. Hence our decision to decontrol the private sector to enable landlords to improve their properties in conjunction with improvement grants.
I should have thought that both sides of the House would agree that bad housing conditions were a social evil and marred the environment in which we live. The Bill will give a new impetus to slum clearance by introducing a subsidy for the first time directed specifically at the clearance of slums. It will relieve local authorities of 75 per cent. of any loss on slum clearance whatever the end use to which the cleared land is put. It will remove any financial obstacle to the clearance of our slums.
I do not often quarrel—at least, not in public—with my right hon. Friend, but when referring to slum clearance earlier this afternoon he said that our slum clearance subsidy of £20 million covered a good deal of the loss on slum clearance of £40 million. I have to say that he was wildly inaccurate. Indeed, an error of that size would have been serious in Slater Walker. No doubt the true figure should be known to the House: it is not £40 million, but £400 million; so my right hon. Friend seriously underestimated the amount of good which he is doing to the country.
This subsidy will meet any slum clearance loss incurred from 1971–72 onwards, but the Bill has been amended to make the subsidy available for losses arising from land acquired as long ago as 1st April, 1965—when the Labour Party was in power—if the land was still held for slum clearance on 1st April, 1971. Equally, by converting private controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies, the Bill makes it possible to preserve many houses which would otherwise have become slums. With the help of the fair rent, which has so long been denied them, there is a good prospect that the landlords of these dwellings will now be able to maintain them properly, and this will benefit about 1 million private tenants.
I have often thought that when looking at this subject dispassionately hon. Members on both sides of the House have told themselves that the problem of coping with the slums and sub-standard houses was so daunting as to be impossibly beyond what we could do in our time. This is not true. I am just beginning to get the first returns from the National House Condition Survey. I shall be publishing the full figures quite shortly, but what they show is that the number of slums in clearance areas has dropped from 1·1 million to 700,000 and that the number of sub-standard houses, those lacking basic amenities, has dropped from nearly 4 million to less than 3 million.
There is a prospect, which all of us can see, of clearing up the problem of slums and sub—standard houses within this decade. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have said that there is no financial reason any longer—though we did not know the returns of the survey when we said it—why we should not get rid of the slums and clear up the sub-standard houses within the decade ahead of us.
Nor can we on this side of the House accept the overcrowding that exists today in London and the other conurbations, and our Bill seeks to solve this problem through the rising cost subsidy. Those local authorities who most need to build new housing to meet the housing need are protected from intolerable escalation and the burden on the ratepayers is limited to 25 per cent. The authority will know that this activity will not push up existing rents.
I do not ask the party opposite to endorse every aspect of our proposals. [Laughter.] Let hon. Gentlemen laugh. I ask them to say that rent rebates for all, rent allowances throughout the private sector, a new slum clearance subsidy and a rising costs subsidy to end overcrowding are good things. I ask them to accept that we have made a genuine effort to solve the human problems which they never tried to tackle, in office or since.

Mr. Thomas Swain: You are a problem they cannot solve.

Mr. Amery: The basic principles of the Bill have stood up to the test of a long debate. I confess that the Bill has been improved in many ways since it was first introduced. The national rent rebate scheme has been made more generous by a substantial increase in the needs allowance, by treating one-parent families in the same way as two-parent facilities and by increasing the rebate or allowance when there are pensioners residing with the tenant and his wife. I was much attracted by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) that at least one member of the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Allowances should have experience of the problems of the chronically sick and disabled and I will ensure that this is carefully looked into.
I come to slum clearance—

Hon. Members: You have done that! Turn over.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) was listened to in silence. Hon. Members must listen in the same way to the Minister.

Mr. Amery: I come to the slum clearance subsidy which has been made retrospective to 1965. In this context I should like to say that we have been able, as a result of our proposed reforms, to make the yardstick a good deal more elastic. [Interruption.] Where the rising cost subsidy remains the yardstick will remain. Where an authority comes into surplus the yardstick will be advisory. There will be a tolerance of 15 per cent. not borne by the ratepayers. In case the jollifications of hon. Members opposite impeded their hearing, what I said was that the rising cost subsidy remains.


There will not be a change in the yardstick but where there is a surplus on the authority's housing revenue account there will be a 15 per cent. tolerance not borne by the ratepayer.
Provision has also been made to reduce the rate of progression to fair rents when tenants would otherwise have to pay more than the fair rent.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Quarter of an hour to go yet.

Mr. Amery: I do not think I am worried by that. I have time enough.
The Newcastle and Birmingham figures indicate that in a number of cases the provision to reduce rate of progression to fair rents would be needed. We have had the figures from Newcastle which have been studied in some degree by the Department of the Environment. We have had the figures from Birmingham which we are still studying. It is clear that they give the lie to the grotesque allegations of the hon. Member for Salford East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that they involve a doubling of rents.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Four times today the Minister has been posed this question, and will he now answer it: Does he accept that there will be an average 35p increase in Birmingham? If he does, it makes nonsense of his Bill. It is a climb-down, a victory for the tenants, and a return to consensus politics. If he does not accept it, he is deceiving the House by giving credence to these figures.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. I cannot tell today whether the figures are right or wrong, but whether they are right or wrong they do not make nonsense of the Bill. We never said that the Bill would double rents: that was what he said. That was the basis of the scaremongering and irresponsible campaign which he foisted on the country and which I am glad to say had very much less effect at the local elections than some people had expected.
But it was not only the hon. Gentleman who took that view. The right hon. Member for Grimsby said as recently as 4th May:
 I am not prepared to withdraw the estimate that we on this side of the House have

made that unrebated rents will on average double by 1976–77 ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 613.]
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had climbed down to the figure of 50 per cent., but on reading HANSARD I saw that he had not come that far to meet the croupier in his demand. The truth is clear. A great many responsible authorities, with responsible officers and responsible members, have put forward their estimate—

Mr. Frank Allaun: How many?

Mr. Amery: I was glad to see that we won the local election at Newcastle handsomely. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman saw that even in Manchester there was a 12 per cent. swing to the Conservatives.

Mr. Dan Jones: Answer the question.

Mr. Amery: Every hon. Member is entitled to say, "What about so-and-so?" but it is clear that the figures quoted by Birmingham, a serious local authority, give the lie to the grotesque allegations of doubling of rents and throw a great deal of doubt on the idea that there may even be a 50 per cent. increase in Birmingham. There may be certain areas where the increase will be of some importance. But it would be wrong to draw general conclusions as to fair rents elsewhere on the estimates from Birmingham or Newcastle. Equally, it would be wrong for hon. Members to take the view that, because these estimates are surprisingly encouraging from the point of view of the tenants, they were wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are they right? "] We cannot say. What we can say is that the local authorities concerned—and they are serious local authorities—have confirmed them to us and that they must be treated with respect. They reveal that talk about the doubling of rents is grotesque and place a large question mark on any talk about increasing rents by as much as 50 per cent.
I now come to the central issues of the criticism raised by the Opposition. The Opposition argue that the relief of poverty should be a national and not a local responsibility. They have said that it would be wrong to place this burden on the local authorities and on the rates. But what is happening today? What is


the situation as we sit here gathered in the House this evening? In many boroughs—many Socialist boroughs—there are rate fund contributions to keep council house rents down.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why not?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman asks, why not? Why is it right to ask ratepayers to contribute towards keeping council rents as a whole down, but wrong to ask them to help towards relieving housing need in both the public arid the private sector through rebates and allowances? Why is it right to subsidise council housing and call on ratepayers to contribute to that, but wrong to tell ratepayers that their money should go towards helping need, whether in council or in private houses?
Hitherto the policy has been to subsidise bricks and mortar. That has been done by both Governments. There is no party point here. That has been done under both Conservative and Socialist Governments since the war. We are changing the policy in order to subsidise, not bricks and mortar but people, human beings, families. Why is it right for ratepayers to contribute towards subsidising general council housing, but wrong for them to contribute towards subsidising the relief of housing need of individuals, whether council house or private sector tenants?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If I, as a ratepayer and a mortgagee, get some assistance with the house that I am buying from a council tenant, whether he is better or worse off than I am, what is wrong with the opposite happening and I, as a ratepayer, subsidising a council tenant, whether he is better or worse off than I am?

Mr. Amery: I am coming to that point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. I see no equity in asking ratepayers to keep down council rents but not to keep down private rents.
The other great question is the one raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that is the question of fair rents and local authority freedom. What should be the criteria? There is no easy answer, but under the previous Government rents went up on council estates by 68 per cent. What is to be the answer? Historic costs are pooled.

The right hon. Member for Grimsby talked about the historic costs pool. This would leave local authorities more freedom, but the anomalies and inequalities would be indefensible. In some cases historic costs would be higher than fair rents. In others they would be much lower. What would be paid under the pooled historic costs system would bear no relationship at all to market value or to what the tenant could afford. It would be related only to what the city fathers paid 40 years ago.

Mrs. Renée Short: Sing us a song.

Mr. Amery: I could understand if, in another place, where there is still some respect for the system of heredity, the idea of pooled historic costs won support as a kind of endorsement—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite who think seriously of adopting pooled historic costs as a criterion should accept that that would make absolutely certain that rents were lower, but for authorities which would never build again, and that is why we took on board the idea of fair rents advocated first by the Labour Party.
We have applied the fair rents principle to council rents for the same reason that hon. Gentlemen opposite applied it to certain private rents; because it is fair that tenants who can afford to pay should pay rents which reflect the fair value of the accommodation, and determining the fair rent is basically a matter of valuation which has been made much easier by the fact that over 300,000 fair rents have now been determined in the private sector.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that rents in the public sector cannot be determined—[Interruption.]—because the procedures for determining them in the private sector are different. But they take into account all the circumstances, including personal circumstances, and—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are reduced to arguing against fair rents for council tenants on the ground that we are not changing the arrangements for tax relief on mortgage interest paid by owner-occupiers. But this argument could be valid only if the present system was fair as between council tenants and owner-occupiers, which it is not.
The owner-occupier pays the market value for his home and he usually has


to find the deposit. He maintains the house at his own expense and receives no rebate. At the beginning of 1971 the average unrebated council rent in England and Wales was £2·50, while the average purchase price of a semidetached house built since 1919 was about £4,700. On the most common terms of a building society mortgage for a first—time purchaser, his average outgoings were about £6 a week after taking account of tax relief, or about two and a half times the average council rent.
It is curious to see hon. Gentlemen opposite adopting a policy which is so opposed to a party supposedly dedicated to equality—[Interruption.]—with their deep-rooted dislike of landlords, however poor, their instinctive suspicion of private ownership—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] They never thought of allowances in the unfurnished, let alone the furnished sector. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have little concern for tenants in the private sector. They have an instinctive suspicion—[Interruption.]—and non cooperation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]
As for default powers, the right hon. Member for Grimsby said that hon. Gen-

tlemen opposite would have—[Interruption.]—comparable default powers. It might be idle to remind the party opposite in the midnight of their intoxication that they will have a bitter awakening.

Will hon. Gentlemen opposite restore universal subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Enough."]—following the Brighton Conference? Ask Roy—[Interruption.] —and ask Dennis. Will they repeal the rebates, allowances, and—[Interruption.] —what about slum clearance and rising costs? Here we have an Opposition split down the middle like some primitive organism. We witness their ancestral suspicion of landlords and jealousy of ownership—[Interruption.]—as they curry favour with those on council estates. But where is their policy on housing?

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKERproceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and 24th April], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 268.

Division No. 169.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fidler, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Sydney
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Astor, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Fox, Marcus


Balniel, Lord
Coombs, Derek
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
Fry, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gardner, Edward


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr. Aan


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul
Gower Raymond


Boscawen, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gray, Hamish


Bowden, Andrew
Dixon Piers
Green, Alan


Braine, Bernard
Douglas-Home Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Grieve, Percy


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Gummer, Selwyn


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Gurden, Harold


Bryan, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus. N&amp; M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (N' c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Farr, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp; Nairn)
Fell, Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)




Haselhurst, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Royle, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald


Havers, Michael
Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sharples, Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc' b' gh &amp; Whitby)


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Simeons, Charles


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


 Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernle
Soref, Harold


Holt, Miss Mary
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, lain


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
More, Jasper
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Stokes, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Sutcliffe, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tapsell, Peter


James, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tebbit, Norman


Jones Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn John
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
 Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth]


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.


Kilfedder, James
Percival, Ian
Tilney, John


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Trew, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, Rr. Bonner
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kirk, Peter
Price David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Dame Joan


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Waddington, David


Lambton, Antony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lane, David
Raison Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Le Marchant Spencer
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Redmond, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Loveridge, John
 Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David 
Wilkinson, John


Luce, R. N.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


McLaren, Martin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Madden, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Madel, David
Rost, Peter
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Concannon, J. D.


Allen, Scholefield
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cronin, John


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bagier Gordon A. T
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Baxter, William
Cant, R. B.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)







Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


Dell, Rt.Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lamborn, Harry
Rankin, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Ewing, Henry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Edward


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
 Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel. David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Meacher, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hardy, Peter
Mellish Rt Hn Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward
Urwin, T. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Varley, Eric G.


Hooson, Emlyn
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
Whitlock, William


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington).


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)



Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES)

11.13 p.m

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.
This is the first of the Orders in Council relating to Northern Ireland to come before the House under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act following the prorogation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I indicated during the passage of that Measure that the Government intended that the first of the Orders in Council would be a provision to create the office and department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. It fell into the category of "urgency" for which special provision is made in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to that Act and the order was made on 30th March.
There was general and widespread agreement in Northern Ireland that the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland, should be established—on the grounds, first, of the need for impartiality and, second, of efficiency so as to take from the police much of the burden which they have hitherto been carrying, but it is appreciated that it will take a little time to achieve this end. The Bill, which was before the Northern Irish Parliament, was debated in that Parliament and was nearing the completion of its progress at the end of March. It is an eminently desirable proposal, and it was necessary to get the right man into office so that he could create the Department.
With the prorogation of the Northern Irish Parliament and the combination of the duties of the Northern Irish Attorney-General with my office, it was urgent to ensure that the agreed system should not be varied. On 30th March I nominated the Director of Public Prosecutions designate to act on my behalf during the week after Easter, and he was appointed by the Secretary of State on 10th April as Director of Public Prosecutions Northern Ireland. Although the Director for Northern Ireland bears the same title as the Director for England and Wales, his duties and responsibilities

are different for, as befits an office covering an area much smaller in jurisdiction than England and Wales, his control over and supervision of prosecutions will be closer and more comprehensive than the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales. But he will enjoy a degree of statutory independence in the exercise of his functions in excess of that enjoyed by the Director here.
It appears to have been believed in another place when the order was debated there that the Director for Northern Ireland has no more and no less independence than the Director for England and Wales, but this is not so. The query was raised there, why has there not been established a Procurator Fiscal system as in Scotland? Apart from the problem and the inappropriateness of grafting a Scottish criminal law officer on to our system of criminal law, the Scottish system of prosecution had been recommended against by a working party set up to examine and suggest the best system for prosecutions in Northern Ireland. As one would expect, there has emerged a proposal for a system which is neither wholly English nor Welsh nor Scots, but Irish.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Why is it necessary to create a special system for Northern Ireland? Why is the English system not good enough for the people in Northern Ireland? I appreciate that recommendations have been made by the Hunt Committee which recommended a Scottish system, but why cannot we have the English system and help to prepare the way for total integration?

The Attorney-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to explain that. The proposals which this Order carries into effect are the proposals which were made in Northern Ireland by a Northern Ireland working party and which met with the approval of the Northern Irish Parliament. After the disturbances of 1969, the Government of Northern Ireland commissioned the Hunt Committee, which was an advisory committee, to report on the police. It also included a recommendation for the adoption of the Scots system of prosecution in Ireland, but it went on to say
 Further study than we have been able to give would be needed before the procedure could be precisely settled.


After that report, the Government of Northern Ireland set up a further study.
There was a working party under Mr. John MacDermott, Q.C. who decided that it was impracticable to graft the Scottish system on to the Northern Irish system, but it recommended that the principle of the Scottish system of prosecutions by independent public prosecutors should be adopted. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government of Northern Ireland and incorporated in their Bill. In turn, these have been generally incorporated in this Order.
The answer to my hon. Friend is that the proposals in this Order for the Director of Public Prosecutions Northern Ireland enact every one of the recommendations which were made by the Justice Committee Report on "Prosecution Process in England and Wales." That Committee of Justice recommended that there should be certain changes in the English system. Each of its recommendations was incorporated in the Northern Ireland Bill, and now in the Order before the House.
The principal difference between that Bill and the Order comes in Article 3, which provides that, during the currency of the Temporary Provisions Act, the Director in Northern Ireland shall discharge his functions under my superintendence and shall be subject to my directions in all matters. This arises from my new role as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and my answerability to this House in Westminster. During this period, since I have Parliamentary answerability in Westminster, I shall have superintendence, as I have in England and Wales, but the day-to-day conduct will be that of the Director.
The House will recall that, by the Temporary Provisions Act, when I became Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, I was given the right of audience, but I asked also to be called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Bar, as does the Bar elsewhere in these islands, enjoys a tradition of independence and of the highest professional standards, and I wish to say how very honoured I am now to belong to its number.
The Director in Northern Ireland will enjoy a high degree of statutory indepen-

dence. He will initiate, undertake and carry on when he thinks proper proceedings on behalf of the Crown for indictable offences and for such summary offences as he considers he should. Accordingly, in general, all prosecutions, save for very minor summary matters such as offences against park byelaws, riding a bicycle without lights and offences of that kind, will be conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and those nominated by him.
Under Article 5, he may cause to be considered any fact or information supplied to him by anyone, with a view to prosecution. He may receive or call for documents, he may cause further investigations to be made, and he may cause inquiries to be made. In other words, if he has reason to believe that an offence has been, or may have been, committed by anyone, he may call for a report on the facts so as to decide whether to institute a prosecution. Further, he may —in fact, he proposes to do so—establish area offices from which prosecutions will be conducted.
The old system of part-time Crown solicitors prosecuting on behalf of the police will eventually be abolished. There will be established in Northern Ireland a centralised system of prosecution, different from that in England and Wales in that it establishes the principle of a national prosecution department but with machinery appropriate for the administration of the criminal law within Northern Ireland.
Under Article 4, the Director is appointed by the Governor, though by the operation of the Temporary Provisions Act this has been done by the Secretary of State. He holds office during good behaviour, which is the traditional phraseology for the appointment of superior judges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: One of the main recommendations of the working party on public prosecutions, led by Mr. MacDermott, was that the appointment should be made by an independent body such as the Civil Service Commission. That important recommendation has been completely departed from in the legislation placed before the Stormont Parliament and now in this Order.

The Attorney-General: That is correct. The proposal incorporated in the order,


taken, as the hon. Gentleman says, from the Northern Ireland Bill, was that he should be appointed by the Governor. Someone has to appoint this independent officer. The Governor will have the power to appoint, and the power to remove will rest also with the Governor, upon the advice of the Privy Council for Northern Ireland. As I was saying, the Director holds his office during good behaviour, the traditional phraseology for the appointment of superior judges.
Under the provisions of the Bill his removal will be by the Secretary of State and thereafter, when the Act expires, it will be on the advice of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland to the Governor. Since the Privy Council is a matter for the Prerogative it is not proper or possible to lay down by order the composition of the Privy Council that would give such advice to the Governor. When the Bill was before the Northern Irish Parliament the Attorney-General there, Mr. Kelly, gave an assurance on Third Reading, which he said would be recorded, that if and when his Government's advice was ever sought by the Governor, it would advise summoning a Council in which judges and ex-judges would be in the majority. In other words, if the removal ever had to be considered it would be by the majority advice of judges and ex-judges. I draw the House's attention to that assurance.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. and learned Friend inform the House how the English Director of Public Prosecutions may be removed from office?

The Attorney General: He is appointed by the Secretary of State and he can be dismissed by the Secretary of State. I am answerable for him in this House. To that extent the Director in Northern Ireland is in a very different position.
Under Article 4(3) the Director's staff will be recruited for the department under his control and will be recruited under the supervision of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission. It may be that some of the Crown Solicitors, those part-time officers who now conduct prosecutions on behalf of the police, will apply for posts in the new department. They will undergo the normal recruitment procedure if they wish to be considered

for such appointment. The staff will be subject to the directions and control of the Director. The Director proposes to have his office and the Belfast area office in the Law Courts at Belfast and to have four area offices of his department to cover the rest of the province.
I referred earlier to Article 5 which gives him a more extensive role than the Director in England. Basically the difference is that the Director in Northern Ireland will have greater control over the police, control which is not enjoyed by his English counterpart. The MacDermott Working Party Report stated that inevitably, and so as to avoid delays, minor summary cases will still be prosecuted by the police. As the report said, if this were not so the system would not work in practice. Paper work would be vastly increased and inevitably delays would arise which would not be in the public interest. Until the Director in Northern Ireland has his department fully operational it is inevitable that the delay will continue, as will the Crown Solicitors, but the Crown Solicitors are abolished on the day to be appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs when the Director will take over.
Under Article 6 there is a duty on the police to inform, and a power of the Director to call for, information and to require investigation. Under Article 7, unless I otherwise direct, consents will be those of the Director of Public Prosecutions but I have kept specific reservations on the Official Secrets Acts consents and the Special Powers Act prosecutions. The object of the proposals is to ensure that prosecutions are in the hands of an independent and impartial authority, which is the object we all seek to achieve. Since 17th April in my role as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland I have paid two visits to Northern Ireland, on 17th-19th April and on 1st-2nd May, and I shall be visiting Northern Ireland this week, on 10th-11th May. I propose at this time, when the office has only just been established, to pay frequent visits every week or every other week.
Apart from my visits, the Director of Public Prosecutions has twice visited me here in London, and I have an Assistant Legal Secretary seconded to me in Belfast. I have arranged with the Director


of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales for one of his officers full-time, and a senior officer on occasions, to assist in Northern Ireland.
There is much to do, but already the framework has been established and a machinery set in motion, although, as with any new system, problems and difficulties must be overcome.
It was on 10th April that the Secretary of State appointed to the post of Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, Mr. Barry Shaw, Q.C., a distinguished and experienced leader of the Northern Ireland Bar, who won the confidence of all sections of the community when acting as the leading counsel to the Scarman Tribunal. It is very fortunate that he has agreed to serve. He was the Director of Public Prosecutions-designate, and his appointment has been very widely welcomed in Northern Ireland in every quarter. His tasks are formidable—to take over all the current prosecutions, which are now at their various stages, and to create and set working a new department.
As the deputy Director the Secretary of State has appointed Mr. Bernard McCloskey, an experienced solicitor of the highest reputation, who likewise commands very wide confidence. He served with distinction in the Scarman Tribunal. He was appointed on 25th April and took up his duties on 1st May.
No one will under-estimate the extent of their task. Between 1968 and 1971 indictable crimes known to the police in Northern Ireland increased from 16,000 to 31,000—almost double. There are many cases of great gravity coming before the courts. Before the present Belfast City Commission in the two weeks 24th April—5th May, there were, for instance, 17 pleas of guilty, two involving firearms. There was a disagreement in a firearms case and three acquittals in firearms cases. There were five convictions after trial, four of which concerned explosive substances or firearms offences. In one firearms case there was a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, and in the second five years' imprisonment. In the two explosive substances cases the first sentence was 10 years' imprisonment and the second was five years' imprisonment.

Mr. Kilfedder: Was that on the man who escaped from the Crumlin Road Gaol?

The Attorney-General: The aim of myself, Mr. Shaw and Mr. McCloskey is to ensure that the prosecutions, their initiation and their conduct will be carried out in accordance with the principles which apply to prosecutions in this country, those applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions in this country, and without fear or favour.
This is an important and urgent reform. The principle and detail of it were debated in Northern Ireland before the passage of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is urgent, because all have an interest in bringing to trial suspected offenders, and it is important because the efficiency of the machinery plays a large part in speedy justice, and it will permit more police to concentrate on their true police duties. But above all it is important because it establishes this independent and impartial officer whose appointment and terms of service will be welcomed by everybody including the very many who want to see the criminal law effectively and fairly administered in the interests of all.

11.34 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: This is not the first time that the House has had to debate at a very late hour and for only a short time an order of cardinal importance. Whereas on some matters we are as profligate as the prodigal son in our misuse of parliamentary time, on others our procedural rules crib, cabin and confine us as we are confined tonight. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) will later be inviting consideration of the matters which the House is to deal with in this difficult period when the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act imposes very special and important responsibilities on the House in dealing with such matters as this important order.
The order is certainly important, because it is not simply a temporary expedient. It seeks to change the form and the substance of the conduct of prosecutions in criminal cases in Northern Ireland. The Attorney-General has explained that it seeks to achieve its purpose in two ways. The first is by establishing in Northern Ireland the office


of Director of Public Prosecutions and making it independent of both the Government and the police. That seems to me to be the right course. The second is by providing that prosecutions shall be conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff and presumably —perhaps the Attorney-General can confirm this—certainly in the interim phase, by lawyers instructed by him instead of by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In so far as these are the purposes of the order, we on this side of the House give it our strong support because we venture to think that it may well play a part in helping to achieve reconciliation. What concerns us, however, is whether the order achieves those purposes.
As to the independence of the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded us of the provisions of Article 4(2) of the order which provides, among other things, that
 The Director and the deputy Director shall each hold his office during good behaviour but each may be removed from his office by the Governor upon the advice of the Privy Council for Northern Ireland ".
On the face of it, that did not seem very reassuring to some of us at least. Presumably the members of the Privy Council—no doubt many of them are men of admirable quality—are former holders of high political office in Northern Ireland. I am bound to say that in the light of recent political history there, that is not necessarily reassuring.
It was, therefore, reassuring to learn from the Attorney-General that the intention at any rate was and is that if there is any question of the removal from office of the Director of the day in Northern Ireland, the advice that the Governor must seek for this purpose is advice from the members of the judiciary or former members of the judiciary who are Privy Councillors in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the undertaking as given in HANSARD by an Attorney-General speaking at the Dispatch Box in Stormont has no legislative power whatever and that this undertaking that we have been told about tonight does not bind any Government to limit the Privy Council to its judicial members?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for anticipating what 1 was about to say. With true ecclesiastical foresight he has anticipated my observations, because I was going to invite the Attorney-General to consider whether, if that is indeed the intention. and in view of the great importance of this matter, this should not have been written into the order.
As the House knows, in considering orders like this we have no power to amend the order, but there is power in the Government to give thought to the views of the House on occasions like this and I am disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this should be written into the terms of the order in a subsequent version of it.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Surely all this is academic in the light of paragraph 1(6) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, which says:
 No provision requiring the advice of any minister…
or of the previous Government of Northern Ireland
…in relation to any action of the Governor shall be taken to apply in connection with the discharge of the Governor's functions by the Secretary of State…
So it would appear as if the Secretary of State now has power to dismiss the Director.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I think that is absolutely right, but happily no kind of prospect of that happening would arise. An admirable member of the Bar in Northern Ireland has been appointed Director and I share the good wishes expressed to him by the Attorney-General for his success. During the interim phase, it is quite right to say that theoretically, on the face of the order, the Secretary of State could dismiss the newly-appointed Director, whose appointment he presumably approved of if he did not make it himself. But this is, as I have said, a permanent Measure. It contemplates permanence and it provides for a future when one hopes that a state of affairs in Northern Ireland will permit a return to normality and the ending of the reign of the Secretary of State. I am sure that no one will be as delighted as the right hon. Gentleman himself if and when that event comes to pass.


There is also the assurance we have had from the Attorney-General. But I do not think that it is enough and perhaps the right hon and learned Gentleman will take on board which I and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) have suggested.
We welcome the proposal to transfer all the prosecutions in criminal cases from the police to the Director and the lawyers on his staff or those he instructs. I think the police will welcome it too. Indeed, I think the police would welcome it here because at present the police have got to be diverted from what ought to be their primary job of detecting and punishing crime to long hours of court advocacy, for which they have had no training and for which they are not equipped—this at a time when there is, of course, a shortage of police officers.
There is a more important aspect, which is highlighted in a few concise words in the report of Lord Hunt's Committee on the police in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 142 says:
…the impartiality of the police may be questioned if they are responsible for deciding who shall be prosecuted and thereafter for acting in court as prosecutors. This practice can result also in a mistaken impression of the relationship between the courts and the police.
That view was put by the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962 in this way:
 In general we think it is undesirable that police officers should appear as prosecutors except for minor cases. In particular we deplore the regular employment of the same police officers as advocates for the prosecution. Anything which tends to suggest to the public mind the suspicion of an alliance between the court and the police cannot but be prejudicial.
The Hunt Committee recommended that the Scottish system of independent public prosecutors should be adopted. Under that system, the police are responsible only for the collection of information about offences and all subsequent action with regard to the prosecution of the case is undertaken by a solicitor in the public service and within the staff of a Procurator Fiscal. I feel there is a good deal to be said for that system. It is significant that it was recommended by the Justice Committee's report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, in its conclusion.

. that the time has come for the appropriate changes in basic procedures to be made and a system of public prosecution broadly following the lines of the Scottish system introduced.
There are differences, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but substantially the "Justice" Committee did make a recommendation that the Scottish system should be followed in Northern Ireland.
My own feeling, although it may not be directly germane to the order, is that there is much to be said for an inquiry into our set up in England and Wales. I do not commit myself to the adoption of the procurator-fiscal system, but there is much to be said for a consideration of our own system, and I say that in no way critical of Sir Norman Skelhorn and his admirable staff.
When I read the report of the working party in Northern Ireland, I did not see the detailed reasons for rejection of the Scottish system spelled out in terms that were very clear to me, but the important thing is that the proposal in the order goes a good deal of the way, subject to certain questions that I shall ask in a moment. towards achieving the independence of the office of director and taking the main responsibility for the conduct of prosecutions out of the hands of the police and putting it into the hands of those employed by an independent director.
While I commend the broad aims and purposes of the order, my queries arise because it seems to leave a great many loose ends. For instance, there is nothing in the order to ensure that prosecutions will be taken out of the hands of the police. On the contrary, Article 5(3) provides:
Nothing in this Order shall preclude any person from initiating…any criminal proceedings…
and that of course includes policemen. Under article 5(1)(c), the Director is given power only where he thinks it proper to initiate Crown proceedings for indictable offence. That means that the police may still as a matter of law initiate proceedings for indictable offences. The House ought to be told what indictable offences are still to be handled by the police.
It is said that the Director may deal with such summary offences as he considers should be dealt with by him. Where is the line to be drawn between minor


summary offences that the police will still prosecute and the rest? It is clearly necessary, for instance, that, certainly for the foreseeable future, all cases with political undertones, or cases of political prosecutions, should be taken out of the hands of the police. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General can give us an assurance about that.
Will the Director draw the line by doing so formally in the form of regulations, which is what the Justice Committee suggested, those regulations setting out what cases the police will prosecute and those they will not? The working party set out a list of cases in which the Director should prosecute, but this is an aspect of the matter that has been left at large.
After all, so-called minor summary cases could easily destroy a reputation or, in the conditions of Northern Ireland, instigate a riot. I am unhappy, and this unhappiness was expressed in another place, about the looseness and lack of precision of the order in this important respect. We may be able to get some assurance from the Attorney-General before the order leaves the House.
Nevertheless, now that those questions have been asked, the Opposition feel that the order should help to achieve an improvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice is vital everywhere, and never more so than in Northern Ireland today.

11.50 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) opened his speech with some felicitously worded comments about the time, the fact that we are "cribb'd, cabin'd, confin'd" and taking a matter of great importance by way of Order in Council at this time of night. I will develop that a little because he indicated that his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) would deal with it in winding up. We are dealing by Order in Council with something that ought to be legislation. This is a new law enacted by the House to deal with the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It is fundamentally wrong that it should be done in this way. It is an effect of

the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act and we have to accept that the House has passed the parent Act and we are in this extreme difficulty.
This Measure has had a fair amount of debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament before coming here and so the difficulty does not arise so acutely on this the first Measure as it will undoubtedly arise on later Orders in Council initiating legislation which the electors of Northern Ireland have had no opportunity through public representatives of discussing in the ordinary parliamentary way. The difficulty was illustrated by a question I put to the right hon. and learned Member just now. He was dealing with the point made by the Attorney-General about the dismissal of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
My right hon. and learned Friend was suggesting that the dismissal procedure would be unique to Northern Ireland. In his words he would be in a very different position from the Director in England. That would be the case if this was legislation in the ordinary sense, if we were enacting the words contained in Article 4(2)(a) to the effect that the Director could be removed from his office by the Governor upon the advice of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland. But that is not to be the case so long as the parent Act is in being. We do not know for how long it will be in being. It is in being for a year but it could be renewed. Anything may happen at the end of that time. There is no guarantee that when the parent Act disappears the Parliament of Northern Ireland will be resuscitated. We do not even know whether there will continue to be a Privy Council for Northern Ireland. In a sense we are legislating for something when we do not know whether it will occur. This underlines the fact that this is perhaps one of the worst methods of legislating that could possibly be devised.
Having made that point and the point about parliamentary time which I hope other of my hon. Friends will develop. perhaps I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member's Friends will not develop that point. They would be out of order.

Captain Orr: Discussion of time could be relevant because of paragraph 4(3) of the Schedule of the parent Act. This order comes forward under the phrase in the middle of that paragraph which says what happens if
 it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency the regulations require to be made without a draft having been so approved ".
That suggests that discussion of the time involved and the question of urgency would be in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very reluctant to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he must confine himself to what is in the order.

Captain Orr: I was coming to the question of whether it is proper that this order should be dealt with under the emergency procedure.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the order refers specifically to the situation that the hon. and gallant Member has just mentioned because it says that it is made without a draft having been approved by Resolution of each House. This is a peculiar order, and surely we are entitled to discuss why it has been brought forward in this manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a different point.

Captain Orr: With great respect, I suggest that it is exactly the same point. I was coming to the question why no draft of this order was laid. The order was made and came into operation on 30th March. We are now debating it on 8th May—five weeks later. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Why the delay? ".] Exactly. Why is it now brought forward as a matter of great urgency and without a draft having been laid? On the one hand, the order has been laid without our having seen a draft because, we are told, the matter is urgent. On the other hand, the Director which this legislation empowers to proceed to his duties was appointed five weeks ago and the House is dealing with the matter only now. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would explain the delay.
We have 1½ hours in which to deal with something for which normally a Bill would have been produced, with Second Reading, Committee and Report stages.

My approach to this legislation, if this were a Second Reading debate, would be to say that it was unexceptionable in principle and that the principle had been conceded and therefore it had our support. But we find ourselves in great difficulty because there are many points and loose ends which, if there had been a Committee stage, we would have wished to debate in detail—not in a general sense, but on properly formed Amendments, each of which could have been debated. In effect, we are having a Third Reading debate on legislation which is taken to have gone through its other stages. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. I see that you are becoming restive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not pursue the matter.
On the question of time, as this is the first of the Orders in Council coming under this procedure, one ought to say that this is highly unsatisfactory. This order is largely agreed, but future legislation may be highly contentious, it may not have been seen in draft or in any other way, and it would be wholly inappropriate to deal with it in this way.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would my hon. and gallant Friend like to comment on the fact that the report of the working party on public prosecutions was printed in April, 1971, by order of His Excellency the Governor of Northern Ireland but no copy of it is available in the Vote Office, and only two copies are available in the Library? My hon. and gallant Friend might like to protest about that.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of a matter that I had intended to raise, namely, the non-availability of papers.
We are in the position, and will be increasingly so as these orders come forward, that the House as a whole will have to refer to reports which were made at Stormont and reports made to the Government of Northern Ireland Every relevant document should normally accompany any draft Order in Council, or any Order in Council such as the one before us tonight, so that the House can study everything that led up to it. I know the difficulties that my hon. Friends and others have had in trying to get hold of the MacDermott Committee's Report.


and difficulties may arise with future Orders in Council.
I was a little surprised that the Attorney-General did not pay some tribute to the patient work that had been done at Stormont before the prorogation. This order is uncontentious because it had already appeared at Stormont and a great deal of work had been done on it. It is a product of the Stormont Parliament.

The Attorney-General: If my hon. and gallant Friend casts his mind back he will recall that I said that this order had been fully debated, that it was eminently desirable, that it had been a Northern Ireland Government Bill, that they wanted it on the ground of impartiality, and that they wanted it on the ground of efficiency. I specifically set that out when I introduced the order.

Captain Orr: I concede that my right hon. and learned Friend said that, but I still think that the words themselves were not as generous as they might have been.
I thought, too, that it might have been as well to put on record, and perhaps I might do so, one aspect of the MacDermott Committee's Report which, while advocating the changes being made and proposed in this order, paid tribute to the system which existed before and the impartiality of the conduct of prosecutions on behalf of the Crown in Northern Ireland prior to the bringing in of this legislation. One would not wish it to be thought that this legislation was necessary because of any malpractice or lack of partiality on the part of those who initiated prosecutions before the change over.
The MacDermott Committee said:
 We would recall that these observations and recommendations are in no way to be taken as any reflection on the manner in which the office of Attorney-General has been discharged over the years… It is our unanimous opinion, formed from a wide variety of personal experience, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have discharged this burden which they have borne for so long with absolute integrity and a degree of competence which has always been remarkably right.
That should be on the record in case anyone thinks that this legislation, desirable though it may be, casts any reflection on the system that pertained before it or on those who had the duty of administering it.
It is surprising that nothing whatever has been said about cost. If this were a normal piece of legislation coming forward in the normal way there would have been some indication, through a money provision or from the Minister, of the costs involved. What is the estimated cost of setting up the new department and its running costs? What saving will result from the abolition of the Crown Solicitors'? In other words, what will be the net result for the taxpayer? How is it envisaged that this House will scrutinise the financial aspects of this whole exercise?
I hope that the changes will make it possible for the high degree of impartiality in the administration of justice in Ulster to continue. It is vital that the administration of the law should be above reproach, I believe it to have been so in the past. I concede that these provisions will make it not only just and impartial but make it be seen to be just and impartial. In that respect I welcome them in general principle. I regret the manner in which they have been dealt with in the House, but I am prepared to see them passed.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: This is the first time that—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was on my feet when you called the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to speak? Is it not the custom for the Chair to call an hon. Member first from one side of the House and then from the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That rests with the discretion of the Chair and I did call the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I would gladly defer to the hon. Gentleman, but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise to be brief.
I was about to say that this is the first time that delegated —

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Could the Chair be persuaded to explain why an hon. Member on this side was not


called following an hon. Member on the benches opposite?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I think not. Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Mendelson: That is most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye as we proceed.
I was trying to say that this is the first time that delegated legislation is not receiving either full debate or is not subject to the possibility of amendment. I quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that this is an important and urgent Measure. In any part of the realm it is desirable that there should be a prosecuting agency independent of the police. That is particularly desirable in Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Government have not so far paid any but the most perfunctory tribute to the late Northern Ireland Government, against which they had no complaint to make of either omission or commission. Therefore, I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged the origin of the order in more than one reforming Administration at Stormont. But I ask this question: in what colonial territory, in what period of Irish or imperial history since, perhaps, the seventeenth century, would legislation such as this be put through without full scrutiny, without the opportunity to alter one title or flourish of the drafting, either in this Parliament or a subordinate legislature?
This should be a Statute. One may say that this is a Second Reading debate which is lasting 1½ hours. There will be no Committee stage. That point was referred to in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who led for the Opposition. He said that he feared that this accumulation of Northern Ireland Measures might choke us, in a parliamentary sense. He said that there was need for some form of Committee in the other place and in this place to deal with this sort of legislation. We still await the Government's intentions in this matter.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is indisposed. We hope that he will soon be fully recovered.

But we might have heard something from him or from another occupant of the Treasury Bench about how we are to deal with this legislation before we embark on this first Northern Ireland Order under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act.
In this case, there has been full discussion at Stormont. However, that will not be the case with other Measures which will come before us. Although it may seem a small point, it is a very material matter that copies of the Stormont HANSARD and Mr. MacDermott's report are not available to hon. Members

The Attorney-General: I have had this matter checked. Reports are available in the Library. There are still some there which have not been taken out.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been unable to obtain a copy of the report of the McDermott Working Party on Public Prosecutions from the Vote Office. There is none available, despite the fact that this was mentioned in the other place on 1st May, when strong protest was made by the former Lord Chancellor and assurances were given by the Government spokesman that the reports would be made available. I went to the Library about 15 minutes ago and was told that only one copy was available, which has been sent into the Chamber for me now. It is an utter disgrace that the report of an important committee of this kind is not available to hon. Members in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not the responsibility of the Chair to see what is available to hon. Members in the House. It is up to the House to decide whether it wishes, in the circumstances, to pass the order.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) for what he said. It is not your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what has passed will have been heard by the Treasury Bench. We must try to get our Irish business into some order, and we must know that the proper documents will be provided. If they cannot be provided in the Vote Office, we must have enough copies in the Library. My


right hon. and learned Friend can shrug his shoulders, but it is a serious point.

The Attorney-General: I was certainly not shrugging my shoulders. I am sorry that my hon. Friends have been inconvenienced. I made that inquiry and reported what I was told, that there were copies in the Library. I am making further inquiries to see whether there are further copies. But I very much regret it if any of my hon. Friends have been placed in difficulty.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. This is a point as much for the future as for this present debate, and I know that he will do his best to see that everything is in order in future.
The point about what seemed to be the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State in regard to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, and the possible dismissal of that officer—although that is most unlikely—has been most adequately dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend, because it appears that he will be in very much the same position as the English Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I may be wrong, but that is how it seems to be, in which case we cannot offer any complaint.
But my right hon. and learned Friend referred rather hurriedly—and I am sorry if I did not catch all the details—to some additional staff. As far as I can make out, that staff seems to come from this side of the water rather than the other. Of course, the best men must be chosen, but I hope that as a result of the suspension of Stormont we shall not see an empire-building exercise in Great Britain at the expense of good men in Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will not allow that to happen.
I conclude by saying that I consider that the way in which Irish business is being handled at this time is a constitutional outrage.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: Time is short, so I shall concentrate on two material points only. Those who have sat through recent debates since the right hon. Member for Penrith and

The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was first appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland of all political persuasions to take part in the process of acting as watchdog, so that as far as is humanly possible the parliamentary representation in this House of the people of Northern Ireland is fully maintained That duty includes timing, because time is of the essence of the parliamentary process.
My first point is, therefore, that I can see some good reason why this matter should be dealt with at this hour on this occasion. I say that partly in view of what has already been said about the amount of parliamentary time previously spent on the subject in another Parliament, and partly because there are other good reasons for doing so. But this is the occasion to put on record also the point of view of people—and not only on the one side of the House—that it would be highly desirable that the Government should find time in future to bring matters relating to the administration of Northern Ireland, and particularly anything that introduced considerable changes, however desirable, to the House early in the afternoon so that a debate could take place in the presence of a normally larger attendance of hon. Members. That would also serve to persuade the people of Northern Ireland that we are anxious to see that the largest possible amount of time, and of the best parliamentary time, is given to their affairs.
My second point is that, along with many other hon. Members, I receive correspondence from time to time from people in Northern Ireland. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland in the last few years, either as a member of a commission or as an individual Member of Parliament, has made many contacts, and one of the good things about such contacts is that people continue to write to one. I have been asked by a number of people to question the Government on what is considered to be the difference between minor and other offences. I hope that we shall have a detailed reply on this question.
I hope that hon. Members opposite who have some criticism to make will not put themselves in the contradictory position of believing that a good deal of


parliamentary work has already been done on this matter and also feeling a little sour about its introduction now. Such an attitude would weaken their case.
We should know in detail what is in the minds of the Attorney-General and his colleagues about the definition of "minor offences ". If that point can be elaborated, at any rate some of those who are concerned about this question will feel more satisfied about what is to happen under this new form of administration.

12.20 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am in entire agreement with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). The House, if it is to convince the people of Northern Ireland that it is interested in their future and their wellbeing, will have to find suitable time to discuss matters that are of importance to the wellbeing of all the people of Northern Ireland.
I point out that hon. Members who have made a tremendous song about the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland—I am talking about Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies—are not even present tonight to show that they have an interest in a matter which affects not only the people they claim to represent but all the people of Northern Ireland.
I emphasise what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said. The MacDermott Report quotes this statement by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland, which is well known as a forthright and independent body, following an investigation the Society made into the dealings of the police:
 The President and Secretary were invited to meet Lord Hunt and his Committee. Before doing so they canvassed the views of members frequently practising in the High Court, County Courts and Magistrates' Courts regarding their views on the impartiality or otherwise of the police as prosecutors and witnesses to confirm or not their own opinions. These views from practitioners, each of 20 years experience and upwards, were unanimous regarding the fairness of all ranks "—
in the RUC—
 and their readiness to assist the legal practitioner.

It should be put on the record that the police did a good job.
I agree with the principle of the Bill concerning the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but I am far from happy about the fact that, when the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill ceases to have effect, the Privy Council in Northern Ireland will be able to tender advice and to remove the Director from office. I should have liked to read to the House the list of the members of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland, all of whom, save the members of the High Court, held office in the Northern Ireland Government. It should be written into the order that the judicial members of the Northern Ireland Privy Council should have a say in discharging the Director, if he is to be discharged.
I agree with the Attorney-General that Mr. Shaw is a man of great integrity. As he got me five months in Crumlin Road prison, I am perhaps better able to say that than anyone in the House.
Two Northern Ireland Members have been able to speak in this debate. When these matters come up again, my attitude will be one of showing the Ulster fighting spirit when it comes to demanding our rights as public representatives in the House. There are many matters about the order which should be carefully scrutinised by the House. It should be said, with all respect to those who have praised the parliamentarians at Stormont, that the Stormont Measure was not discussed as fully as it should have been. I hope that when the next Order in Council comes before this House both the Vote Office and the Library will be able to supply us with the necessary documents and that adequate time will be given by the Leader of the House for us to discuss those matters which affect the destiny of the country part of which I represent in this House.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) speaking with conviction about the need for a new form of Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) dealt with the legal aspects of this


order, and all I wish to say on this point is that overall we accept and welcome what is contained in it. It is important that the relationship of the police to the courts should be clearly separated. My right hon. and learned Friend showed that this is not clearly done, and we hope that in these minor respects the Attorney-General will give us some assurance in the albeit short time that he will have later.
I should like to say this about the Royal Ulster Constabulary: the activities of the security forces must be kept strictly within the law. It is not as easy as all that, given the stress under which the security forces operate and the much greater atrocities and outrages which are perpetrated in Northern Ireland. It is important that we all see both sides of this question. But this changed relationship of the RUC to the courts, which is implied to an important degree in this order, is vital, and this is the basic reason why we support the order.
I wish to turn to the matter of procedure. This order illustrates the need to get the procedure right. I appreciate the urgency aspect which was implied in the Act that we passed recently, that where there is urgency special measures have to be taken. But, as has been said, little urgency has been shown in bringing this matter to the House. There could have been time for fuller scrutiny. It is our hope that orders such as this will have much greater opportunity for discussion on the Floor of the House.
I should like to turn to the subject of preparation. I have had difficulties which other Members have illustrated today. It has been said that the copy of the working party report is not in the Vote Office. In another place the Minister apologised for this. This is not just a niggling point. If we are to debate the problems of Northern Ireland properly, a document such as this should be freely available for consultation. My right hon. and learned Friend had one made available to him, and that is excellent, but as a generality I am sure that the Government must make better arrangements so that we as Members can make better preparations for discussion.
I understand that there was a Private Member's Bill sponsored, I believe, by a member of the Northern Ireland Labour

Party, on this matter. I should have liked to consult it to see what bearing it has on this order. I should like to know what discussions there have been in the Northern Ireland Parliament. In another place a speaker said that he did not wish to flood the Vote Office, and nor do I, but there is a difference between flooding and providing the necessary documentation to enable us to do our job properly, and we have not been able to do it in the context of this order.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Committees in this House have been adjourned for days until the necessary documents could be made available?

Mr. Rees: I am obliged to the bon. Gentleman. He reinforces my argument. We on this side have no wish to use the question of procedure and the problem of Northern Ireland in order to pre-empt time, but the Government's difficulties with time should not prevent proper discussion of these important matters. This is not the occasion to go into the various procedures which could be evolved, but we cannot allow it to pass without stressing the need for major issues of this kind to be debated on the Floor at a proper time.
What matters, above all, is that we are all able, on both sides, to consider the matter carefully and to influence the Government's mind. We have not been able to do that tonight. Obviously we shall not vote against the order—we welcome what the Government have done—-but we feel it right to emphasise that this occasion illustrates the difficulties which will arise in the coming months on wider problems unless we can find means within our rules to enable the House to do its job properly.
Not only will that call for discussions about procedure, but we hope that the Government will take due care to ensure that all the necessary documents are freely available and in good time. The arrangements made for this order have not met that requirement, though, happily, they are generally accepted. There is an implied warning here, however, and we put it to the Government in as helpful a way as we can at this too-late hour of the night.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), taking up the point which I made earlier about the absence of copies of the report of the MacDermott Working Party on Public Prosecutions. A rather sorry outlook for the future is presented. More time has been given in the past to the ill treatment of animals than has been given to this important Measure—a debate of only 1½ hours, and that without the documents which would enable us to do our job properly. Only two copies of the report are in the Library, and there is nothing available in the Vote Office.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not have a copy of the report. I sent for one two or three minutes ago and obtained it.

Mr. Kilfedder: A copy was eventually sent in to me from the Library. My point is that, unless copies are available in the Vote Office in the ordinary way, Members will not be able to discuss legislation of this kind properly.
The order has my support, because anything which helps to put an end to the Republican lies which have been so freely broadcast in Northern Ireland about the partiality of the police and the judiciary is to be welcomed. What I am protesting about is the limited time for debate in the House. As I say, more time is given to the ill treatment of dogs. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South said, terrible atrocities are being committed in Northern Ireland today. IRA gunmen are holding their own courts martial, as we read in yesterday'sSunday Telegraph,shooting people in the legs, ill treating them, cutting off the hair of young girls, tarring and feathering them—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Torturing people.

Mr. Kilfedder: And torturing, as the hon. Member says. We are considering a serious topic, yet we are restricted both in time and in the material available to us.
The Government have elected not to adopt the Scottish system recommended by the Hunt Report in the first place. I see nothing wrong in that. There were many grave defects in the Hunt Report, though it is, perhaps, right to say that

there was something worthwhile in its recommendation for a Director of Public Prosecutions. But the Hunt recommendation on the lines of the Scottish Procurator-Fiscal has not been implemented. Fortunately, the working party, under the chairmanship of Mr. MacDermott, scotched that suggestion—if the House will forgive the phrase—showing, perhaps, that the then Northern Ireland Government should not have been so ready to swallow wholesale all the recommendations and opinions of the Hunt Committee.
I welcome the Order in Council because it helps to put an end to the lies and allegations which have come from the republicans in Northern Ireland. But I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether, if he can recommend this system for Northern Ireland, he will put it forward for England and Wales? Why should there be this difference? Northern Ireland always seems to be treated differently and the former Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Faulkner, said that the Westminster Government were treating Northern Ireland like a coconut colony. We should not be treated any differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. I ask the Government to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland enjoy the same system and the same rights as are enjoyed by people here.
I may have taken longer on my speech than I was asked to take. Three hon. Members from Northern Ireland have been able to talk tonight and we have had to restrict the time for the debate. I ask the Government to provide more time in the future.

12.37 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my hon. Friends were in difficulty over the report of the Working Party on Public Prosecutions. Copies were in the Library—

Reverend Ian Paisley: On a point of order. Surely the Attorney-General can speak only by leave of the House?

The Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is quite correct.

The Attorney-General: I thought that as I was moving an order I was entitled to speak again in reply. I seek permission of the House to reply.
I am sorry about the Working Party Report. Copies were in the Library and I obtained one from there only a short time ago. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland are well aware of the Hunt Report and the Working Party Report on Public Prosecutions. They have been matters of considerable debate in Northern Ireland and I have no doubt that firm views have been formed about whether the Hunt Committee proposal or the MacDermott Committee proposal is the best for Northern Ireland.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) I say that having regard to the size of the jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the proposed system improves on the system in England and Wales. It carries out every single recommendation that the Justice Committee Report said should be introduced in England and Wales. The opportunity was taken by the Northern Irish Government, and under this order these recommendations will be carried out.
To my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) I say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The order incorporates what was a Northern Irish Bill which had received its Second Reading, passed its Committee Stage and its Report Stage and received its Third Reading. I appreciate the points raised on both sides about the amount of time which the House will require, particularly in cases where there has not been such full debate in Parliament and in public in Northern Ireland on a subject. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has been sitting through the debate and has taken into account what has been said. He will report to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The order brings forward the best system of prosecution, having regard to the area of jurisdiction. It will produce what Northern Ireland itself has called for through its Parliament and public debate—the system of the impartial and independent prosecutor.
I can say in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that it is right that the Director will instruct lawyers.
With regard to the Director's drawing the line formally, administrative directions will be made, but the proposition is that all indictable offences and all summary offences which he thinks he should take, save for the most minor and most summary, will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I was asked about cost. The net cost will be about £100,000, taking into account the saving on the present prosecuting system.
I commend the order. I appreciate the points made by hon. Members, but I think their complaints are directed to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. My duty now is to commend a system of prosecution which I think will reflect to the credit and benefit of the whole of the people of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April. be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to offer a formal apology to the Attorney-General. It was a substantive Motion. and not an order, as I had supposed.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged for your gracious comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had thought that for once I was right.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL, ADVISORY SERVICE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause A

OBSTRUCTION OF INSPECTOR OR EMPLOY-
MENT MEDICAL ADVISER

Lords Amendment: No. I, in page 7, line 2, at end insert new Clause A—
 A. Any person convicted of an offence under section 146(4) of the Factories Act 1961 (obstruction of inspector), or under that subsection as it applies in relation to an employment medical adviser by virtue of section 1(5) above, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 (and section 156 of that Act shall not apply).

12.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It might be for the convenience of the House to take with it the following Lords Amendments:
No. 2, in Schedule 1, page 8, line 34, leave out
 and liable to a fine not exceeding £20".
No. 3, in Schedule 3, page 11, line 7, at end insert
 and (except for offences committed before the coming into force of this Act) the words ' and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds' in subsection (4).
No. 4, the Title, line 4, after "matters ", insert
 and in relation to the obstruction of inspectors ".

Mr. Smith: Lords Amendment No. 1 inserts a new Clause after Clause 6 which fixes the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser, and also that for obstructing a factory inspector, at £100. This penalty applies both to the person doing the obstruction and to the occupier of the factory in which the obstruction takes place.
The penalty in the Factories Act, 1961 for obstructing a factory inspector is only £20, and the Bill at first proposed the same penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser. During the discussion in Committee and on Report we were pressed by the Opposition to increase the penalty in the Bill, but I resisted that on the grounds that it would be anomalous to provide a higher penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser than for obstructing a factory inspector, that an increase would in any case have little practical effect, and that it would be better to await the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robens before doing anything to change the penalties in safety, health and welfare. But when the Bill was before another place an Amendment was carried to increase the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser to £100, and another was tabled to make a similar increase in the penalty for obstructing a factory inspector.
The Government thought it right, in view of the importance which both

Houses clearly attached to this matter, to accept both proposals, and therefore tabled Government Amendments to that effect. These were accepted in another place on Report, and they are before this House for the agreement of hon. Members.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential on Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 changes the Long Title of the Bill, since the previous Long Title referred only to the Amendment of the Factories Act so far as
 medical arrangements and related matters
were concerned, and did not cover any amendment of the Act in relation to the obstruction of inspectors.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) will no doubt see the Government in this matter as sinners coming to repentance. I am sure that he will welcome this repentance, and I hope that the House will agree with the adoption of these Amendments. I saw a good deal of validity in the case put forward before but, as I tried to explain, I felt that there was this anomaly concerning the Factory Inspectorate. Happily, this can now be cleared up.
I should like to acknowledge the help and interest which we have received from the hon. Member for Doncaster and his colleagues, and indeed from hon. Members on both sides of the House, in our discussions on this Measure. I am sure the hon. Member will join me in wishing every success to this new service once it becomes established when the Bill becomes law.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I should like to express the support of this side of the House for the Lords Amendments and I hope to do so with the commendable brevity shown by the Under-Secretary of State. I must say right away how grateful I am for his generous remarks about myself and my hon. Friends.
In expressing our support, I hope that it is in order for me to congratulate the noble Lords in another place for what I think is the triumph for common sense which they have shown. At the same time, however, my praise is tinged with a a little humility because, as the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, we on


this side twice tried and twice failed to persuade him to accept what he has now put to the House. I can only assume that it was because their Lordships in the other place were either more eloquent, more logical or more persuasive, or perhaps it was a combination of all three, that eventually, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the Government have been brought to repentance. I can only console myself with the thought and knowledge that their Lordships had very careful regard to our debates in this House, and I hope that they took their cue from our debates.
If I might make one rather critical comment about the Amendments, I think they are a rather clumsy way of achieving their objective. I know we are repeatedly reminded that parliamentary draftsmanship is a highly-skilled art and that we should not question the great expertise which is shown by parliamentary draftsmen in the drafting of Bills and the rephrasing of our Amendments. If I might say so with great respect to them, I am sometimes convinced that we laymen can perhaps do at least as well. I am sure that when their Lordships in the other place framed their Amendments, they did so with tremendous parliamentary experience. It seemed to me that their objective would have been achieved much more simply by the Amendments they tabled.
The Amendments logically underscore the much broader point we made in our debates that the ceiling of penalties provided for in the factories legislation not only had been overtaken by the passage of time and the very severe inflation we have experienced in recent years but had also been shown to be irrelevant in the light of the successive decisions of the courts that were inhibited by the level of penalties. I can only hope that Lord Robens and his committee have, as I am sure they have, paid careful regard to our debates in both Houses and the remarks that have been made before eventually he puts forward his recommendations to the Secretary of State about the necessary reform of our factories legislation.
I echo the remarks of the Under-Secretary about the future of the service. Of course I wish it well and hope that it is speedily implemented and proves to be the effective instrument we all hope and believe it will be. My best wishes go to the service and those who will staff it,

with the hope that it will go forward without any further hindrance or impediment from any source.
I am particularly pleased to be in on the closing of the curtain at least on this stage of events, because I recall that it was over two years ago that I almost had the first word in the House on the creation of this new and very important service. I am delighted now to have the opportunity to say what I think and hope will be the last word on the subject

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)).

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Monro.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects the health service in Scotland, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act and any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided;

(2) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of the salary of a Health Service Commissioner for Scotland and of any pension or other benefits granted to or in respect of persons who have held office as such Commissioner;

(3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the said Commissioner under that Act; and

(4) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Monro.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Mr. Peter Hordern be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. Martin Maddan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

EXPENDITURE

Ordered,

That Mr. John Hunt be discharged from the Expenditure Committee and that Miss Janet Fookes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS'FUND

Resolved,

That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Mr. C. Pannell.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — NEWPORT (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have asked for this short debate calling for development area status for Newport because the constituency I represent at present is losing major sections of its industry. There is, for example, the recent decision of the British Aluminium Company to sack its 450 employees there and to concentrate production at its other plant in Burntisland, Fife, in Scotland. Likewise, there is the proposal of the British Steel Corporation to close the tube works at Newport, which employs some 1,100 men. Here again, production will be transferred to Clydesdale, Scotland. Both of these moves are to development areas. The essential point is that we need development area status

for Newport both to attract new industry and to retain our existing industries.
In order to get a true picture of what has been happenning and the deterioration which has taken place, it is necessary to go back about two years. The picture then was of a prosperous town with a bright future. The cornerstone of the economy of Newport is the great Spencer steelworks, which employs about 9,000 people. In January, 1970, the BSC made an announcement to the effect that there was to be a major investment at the plant, with the provision of a third blast furnace and an increase in the steel-making capacity there from 2 million tons annually to 3·5 million tons. This was a heartening announcement and one that gave great confidence all round.
By the middle of 1970, work had started on the then Board of Trade census offices, which had been authorised in April, 1968, as a result of the Labour Government's policy of devolution of Government offices. This major project was earmarked for Newport as eventually providing some 2,000 jobs and providing the right balance of jobs in an area where there tended to be a concentration of heavy industry.
Early in 1970, the docks at Newport were going well. The Government had rejected the major expansion scheme of the Port of Bristol on economic and financial grounds and particularly because there was already unused capacity in the South Wales ports.
Newport had been granted intermediate status. Following the report of the Hunt Committee in April, 1969, the Government had decided to grant Newport that status.
Other exciting developments were afoot. The flats to the east and west of the town were earmarked as a maritime industrial development area. It was reckoned to be one of the three outstanding sites in the whole country.
Newport and the surrounding areas were to be the centre of the Severnside development. Generally, factories in the area were working to capacity, and it was possible to describe Newport as the Birmingham of Wales. Male unemployment was 1,420 and while we had not reached the millenium with that figure, it was considerably better than the figures generally obtaining in South Wales.
The mood in the middle of 1970 was one of optimism, and that was certainly reflected in my speeches in the House, in the constituency and elsewhere. Comparing the situation then with the situation now makes it clear why I am asking for development area status for Newport.
I have already mentioned the British Aluminium Company and the loss of 450 male jobs. There is also a proposal that Stewarts and Lloyds should close the tube works, which means the loss of 1,100 jobs. It is an unnecessary closure which cannot be justified. The works were established 50 years ago and have always been known as producing high quality products, and they have been profitable over the years.
What is now needed is capital investment. The works have had good industrial relations over the years and are on an excellent site, affording good access by road, rail and sea. Where is the business initiative of the British Steel Corporation? It seems to be giving up the ghost in many world markets. We were told about the new outlets to be found as a result of going into the Common Market. This optimism certainly does not seem to be justified now.
In the tube division particularly, we wonder whether the old private enterprise owners who still seem to be in charge have their hearts in the publicly-owned steel industry. We have a director of the Corporation who is supposed to look after the Welsh interests. How can he justify a decision of this kind? This decision to close the Stewarts and Lloyds tube works at Newport should not be allowed to go ahead. The Minister should intervene.
There are not only these two projects. There have been many other redundancies in the area. Some of us in South Wales are wondering whether there is anyone in the Government prepared to stand up for Welsh interests. Consider the docks. They suffered their first blow in 1970. There was the decision of the then new Government to allow Bristol to go ahead with its major expansion scheme for the building of the West Dock. I felt from the start that this was no more than a vote-catching device in Bristol because, as the Labour Government had conclusively proved, this project could not be justified financially or

economically. It will do immense harm to the South Wales ports and the ports of Severnside generally. Eventually it will result in the closure of at least one port in South Wales.
Worse was to come, because a few weeks ago there was the decision of the Steel Corporation to take the whole of its iron ore trade away from Newport. This was a traumatic blow because, apart from volume, the iron ore trade is highly remunerative. It is now to go by 1974, coinciding with the opening of the new West Dock at Bristol, with all the increased competition flowing from that. One wonders where all the new trade will come from. What was needed at Newport docks was a short-term modernisation scheme to improve the existing ore handling facilities. Then more thought could have been given to the original new iron ore terminal at Eskmouth for which parliamentary approval was obtained a few years ago.
There is no doubt that the great Spencer Steel works will expand considerably over the years and will need a terminal of its own. This works is the cornerstone of the economy of Newport. One of the early decisions of the Government was to hold up the major investment scheme there. There was a delay of several months which considerably undermined confidence, particularly among the workpeople. Today we have the announcement by the Minister for Industry about future investment in the steel industry. It can only be described as the non-event of the year.
It has been announced that £90 million is to be invested in the Spencer works from 1970–71 to 1973–74. This is a nebulous way of putting it, particularly bearing in mind that the major part of this investment was authorised in January, 1970, which is nearly 2½ years ago. The Spencer works is at a serious competitive disadvantage compared with the other steel works in South Wales, at Port Talbot. The latter is already in a development area and, in addition, it has its iron ore on the doorstep, so to speak, whereas the iron ore for the Spencer works is to be conveyed 60 miles overland, with all the technical and other difficulties that this could involve.
In Newport and Monmouthshire generally there is a serious unemployment


situation. The figures speak for themselves. In Newport, in June, 1970, male unemployment was 1,420. In April, 1972, it was 2,672—an increase of 88·2 per cent. In Monmouth as a whole, there were 4,533 unemployed in June, 1970. Now there are 8,423—an increase of 85·8 per cent. In June, 1970, in the country as a whole, there were 459 young persons under 18 years of age unemployed. In April, 1972, the figure was 984—an increase of no less than 114.4 per cent. The latter figure is perhaps the biggest scandal—the fact that young people coming out of school have no jobs to go to. Is it any wonder that there is an increase in juvenile delinquency?
Mr. John Long, the Town Clerk of Newport, wrote to me a few days ago pointing out that intermediate status had not succeeded in bringing any new industry to Newport and that, indeed, there was a positive encouragement to move out. Now the benefits of intermediate status are even less due to the following Government proposals. First, intermediate areas have been extended, especially to the north of Birmingham. Secondly, the amount of building grants is to be reduced. Thirdly, tax allowances are to be made available throughout the country. The disadvantage of not being able to offer advance factories with concessional rents will apparently continue.
I want the Government to face the fact that Newport is the centre of a subregion in South Wales which must be recognised as an economic and geographical entity. Each day 18,300 people travel to work in Newport, so that when Newport loses industry much of Monmouthshire suffers, too. According to the Secretary of State for Wales last Monday, I was doing the electors of Newport a disservice by spotlighting these difficulties. I wonder what I am supposed to do, whether to clap my hands or to go out and celebrate, when I see all these people being made redundant and put on the dole.
I have tried tonight to describe the deterioration that has taken place in the economy of Newport over the last two years. If we ask ourselves what has changed, the answer is that there has been only one significant event in the last two years, and that was a General Election and the return of a Conservative Government under a Prime Minister who had

promised to reduce unemployment at a stroke. We see today the result of that promise. If the Government have any conscience or principle left they must tackle this situation in Newport, and one of the first things which they should do is to give it development area status.

1.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I have listened with great interest to the account of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) of the situation in Newport, and I congratulate him on obtaining a debate on this important area. I was not quite certain whether it was an account of the situation in Newport as I understand it, or a party political speech. No one could possibly quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's right to express concern about the problems of his constituency, but I hope that when this debate is reported the emphasis will be on Newport's many positive attractions rather than on the general picture of gloom and depression which the hon. Gentleman at times seemed to be presenting.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told him in the House last Monday that descriptions of that type are not only inaccurate but do a disservice to the area. Of course the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his point, but I ask him to remember that if he wants to attract industry to the area of Newport the kind of speech that he has just made is not calculated to encourage it to go there. I shall not, in my speech, avoid dealing with the problems which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but in doing so I shall mention the many positive advantages which we see the town to have.
The question which we are here to consider is whether Newport should be awarded development area status. The hon. Gentleman argues that the situation and prospects of the area are such as to justify a development area scale of assistance. In our recent review of regional policy, culminating in the White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development, we gave full consideration to the situation and prospects in Newport and decided that we would not be justified in making the change to development area status. Clearly, therefore, our view of Newport's situation differs from


the hon. Gentleman's. It will help to clarify our decision if I explain why.
First, the unemployment rate in the Newport travel-to-work area is 5·2 per cent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is unacceptably high. I do not, however, agree that it justifies a development area scale of assistance. The rate is, however, below that for Wales as a whole, which is 5·7 per cent. and well below the rate in the Welsh Special Development Area, of 6·8 per cent. in March. It is also slightly below the average for intermediate areas in the country as a whole, which was 5·5 per cent. in March. To stress the positive, as I hope to do on each aspect, 70,000 people are in employment in the Newport area, nearly half of them in industry. The hon. Gentleman may think those figures irrelevant, but I believe that it is important to stress that there is a thriving local economy with a strong industrial base.
There is nothing, therefore, in the current unemployment statistics to suggest that Newport is being unfairly treated with reference to other parts of Wales and the country as a whole. But the hon. Gentleman rightly argues that future prospects must be taken into account. We did so in our review. The negative side is represented by the closure of the BSC Tube Works, which I shall come on to deal with later, and the closure of the British Aluminium Plant. These decisions were matters for the commercial undertakings concerned and are not something on which Government can or should intervene. But such moves naturally give rise to local concern and it is right that we should, as we did, take their effects into account in making decisions on Newport's status. The first point that needs making is that calculations which add prospective redundancies to current unemployment figures invariably prove exaggerated. They ignore the fact that a proportion of the workers concerned will be successful in obtaining jobs elsewhere, either within the area or outside.
They ignore also the fact that there are prospective new jobs in the area which, although there are not as many as one would like to see, will provide significant opportunities for those unemployed now as well as those faced with future redundancy. The outcome of the situation

may, therefore, not prove to be quite as serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. More particularly, such calculations are short term and make on allowance for the effectiveness of Government incentives over a longer period.
In pressing for development area status the hon. Gentleman recognises that our new system of incentives is a valuable weapon in creating new jobs or maintaining existing ones. It is not clear to me whether he has fully considered the very major regional measures that are now available to encourage industrial investment in the area. As a result of the Budget announcements, firms in Newport will be able to take advantage of free depreciation on all investment in machinery and plant. Previously they were eligible only for a first-year allowance of 80 per cent. of such expenditure.
As far as buildings are concerned, the initial tax allowance of 40 per cent. for new industrial buildings will still apply, and, added to that, qualifying firms will be able to receive the new regional development grants towards expenditure on new buildings or adapting existing premises. These grants will not be taken into account for tax purposes. Unlike their predecessors, these grants will be available to existing industry in Newport, as well as to newcomers.
The new system of grants will certainly encourage industry in the area to undertake modernisation schemes with a view to future competitiveness. As well as these measures, selective assistance will in principle be available in Newport, as an intermediate area, and industrial development certificates will generally continue to be freely granted for new developments.
I hope that this brief outline of the incentives available will make it clear that Newport's intermediate area status is a potential source of major benefits and not something to be underestimated.
Steel is, of course, a vital industry for the Newport area. I well understand the concern in Newport over the coming closure of the British Steel Corporation's Newport tube works and the anxiety of those who will be affected. The Corporation has a very difficult task in carrying through a programme of rationalisation anticipated by the Labour Government,


involving the closure of old uneconomic plant throughout the United Kingdom steel-producing areas. This is essential if our steel industry is to meet on equal terms the strong competition it faces from overseas competitors.
The BSC is very much aware of the regrettable consequences of closures and makes great efforts to mitigate the hardship caused. In particular, the Corporation sets aside a period for consultation with employees of works it intends to close, but these decisions are, of course, the responsibility of the Corporation and the Government cannot intervene.
In the case of the Newport tube works, I am sure it considered most carefully the well-argued points put forward by the Works Action Committee against the closure. It is not for me to comment on these; they are for the Corporation to judge. However, I understand that, as a result of these representations, the BSC agreed to defer the closure for six months so that it would take place at a time when alternative employment would be more readily available.
On the question of steel generally, BSC investment approved in the past two years has been at an historically high level and the hon. Gentleman will know that about one-third of the £265 million programme approved for 1972–73 is in Wales and Monmouth. The substantial Llanwern C development to increase output of hot-rolled coil will help ensure the town of Newport a secure role in the future of United Kingdom steelmaking.
The decision to concentrate iron ore imports through Port Talbot is primarily one for the Corporation and the British Transport Docks Board. I understand that the British Transport Docks Board is confident that there will be no adverse effect on employment in Newport Docks

as there are new traffics in prospect. This measure will enable the Corporation to make full use of its investment at Port Talbot and thus lead to substantial savings.
To summarise how we see the position, we acknowledge that Newport is faced with real problems. This is why it has intermediate area status. The question whether development area status is justified cannot possibly be considered in isolation from other parts of Wales and the rest of the country. Our evaluation of the situation in Newport and the prospects for the town in that context has led us to conclude that development area scale of assistance is not justified. The unemployment rate in the Newport area is typical of the intermediate areas as a whole and significantly below the rate experienced in development and special development areas. The basic point is that Newport can offer substantial inherent advantages as an industrial location.
Geographically it is very well situated. There are excellent road links via the M4 and M5 motorways to London and the Midlands. There are well-developed port facilities and there is land available for development.
Newport County Borough Council has been alert and active in its efforts to attract new developments. I have with me a copy of the excellent brochure which it has produced. I am sure that industry will realise the attractions of the area and that the Council's efforts will be rewarded. I am confident that, despite the speech of the hon. Gentleman, Newport has a viable future and that this will be ensured by the measures we have taken to assist the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock.